Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.

Citation851 F.3d 1275
Decision Date16 March 2017
Docket Number2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556
Parties MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. EVE-USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A.S., Formed Under the Laws of France, Synopsys, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Mark E. Miller , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiff-cross-appellant. Also represented by Anne E. Huffsmith, Luann Loraine Simmons .

E. Joshua Rosenkranz , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Daniel A. Rubens , Andrew D. Silverman; Robert M. Loeb, Eric Shumsky , Washington, DC; Indra Neel Chatterjee, Vicki L. Feeman, Travis Jensen, Scott T. Lonardo , Menlo Park, CA; William H. Wright , Los Angeles, CA.

Sean C. Cunningham , DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA, for amici curiae Hewlett-Packard Company, Aruba Networks, Inc., NETGEAR, Inc., Newegg Inc., Oracle America, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Safeway Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Veri-Fone, Inc., VIZIO, Inc.

Before Lourie, Moore, and Chen, Circuit Judges.

Moore, Circuit Judge.

The present appeal arises from litigation in the District of Oregon between Mentor Graphics Corp. ("Mentor") and Synopsys, Inc., Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A.S., and EVE-USA, Inc. ("EVE") (collectively, "Synopsys").1 Mentor asserted several patents against Synopsys, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,240,376 ("the '376 patent"), 6,947,882 ("the '882 patent"), 6,009,531 ("the '531 patent"), and 5,649,176 ("the '176 patent"). Synopsys asserted two patents against Mentor—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,132,109 ("the '109 patent") and 7,069,526 ("the '526 patent").

The '376 patent was the only patent tried to the jury. Prior to trial, the district court granted summary judgment barring Synopsys from challenging the '376 patent's validity because of assignor estoppel. It also granted Synopsys' motion in limine precluding Mentor from introducing evidence of willful infringement. The jury found in favor of Mentor and found damages of approximately $36,000,000. Synopsys appeals the infringement verdict, the damages award, and the summary judgment of assignor estoppel. Mentor cross-appeals the motion in limine regarding willfulness.

The district court granted summary judgment on the remaining patents prior to trial. It held that Synopsys' '109 patent was indefinite and Synopsys' '526 patent lacked patent-eligible subject matter. Synopsys appeals both decisions. The district court also held that the claims of Mentor's '882 patent lacked written description support and its infringement allegations relating to the '531 and '176 patents were barred by claim preclusion. Mentor cross-appeals both decisions.

We hold there was substantial evidence to support the jury's infringement verdict regarding the '376 patent and affirm the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the damages award. We affirm the summary judgment that assignor estoppel bars Synopsys from challenging the validity of the '376 patent. We reverse the summary judgment that Synopsys' '109 patent is indefinite. We affirm the summary judgment that Synopsys' '526 patent lacks patent-eligible subject matter. We vacate the motion in limine precluding Mentor from presenting evidence of willful infringement. We reverse the summary judgment that Mentor's '882 patent lacks written description support. Finally, we reverse the summary judgment that Mentor's infringement allegations regarding the '531 and '176 patents are barred by claim preclusion.

I. BACKGROUND

Every patent in this case involves simulation/emulation technology. The parties have a complicated litigation history, and only the relevant portions thereof are addressed here. In 1998, Mentor filed the application that would become the '376 patent. The two inventors, Dr. Alain Raynaud and Dr. Luc Burgun, were Mentor employees and assigned the invention to Mentor. Dr. Raynaud and Dr. Burgun subsequently left Mentor and founded EVE, with Dr. Burgun serving as president and CEO and Dr. Raynaud serving as a Technology Center Director. In 2006, Mentor sued EVE for infringement of the '376, '531, and '176 patents, alleging EVE's "ZeBu" emulation and verification system infringed the patents. Mentor and EVE settled prior to trial, and EVE obtained a license to the three patents. The license contained a provision terminating the license if EVE were acquired by another company in the emulation industry.

In 2012, Mentor learned Synopsys was in discussions to acquire EVE. Mentor's CEO contacted his counterpart at Synopsys and offered to waive the confidentiality provision of the Mentor-EVE license to inform Synopsys that the license would terminate if Synopsys acquired EVE. Synopsys and EVE subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the '531, '176, and '376 patents were invalid and not infringed. One week later, Synopsys acquired EVE. Mentor answered the declaratory judgment complaint, adding counterclaims of willful infringement of the '531, '176, and '376 patents. Synopsys then amended its complaint to assert claims of infringement of the '526 and '109 patents against Mentor. The district court consolidated the suit with another involving Mentor's '882 patent.

The parties appeal the various summary judgment and post-trial rulings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II. ANALYSIS
A. Synopsys' Appeal
1. Infringement of Mentor's '376 Patent

The jury found Synopsys infringed claims 1, 24, and 26–28 of the '376 patent and awarded damages. Synopsys moved for JMOL that its products did not infringe. The district court denied the motion, and Synopsys appeals. We affirm the denial of JMOL.

We apply the law of the regional circuit when reviewing a denial of JMOL after a jury verdict. In the Ninth Circuit, JMOL is appropriate only "if the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict." Pavao v. Pagay , 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002).

The '376 patent relates to debugging source code after synthesis. Synthesis is the process of transforming Hardware Description Language ("HDL") into gate-level "netlists." '376 patent at 1:26–27. Much of the patent's disclosure addresses Register Transfer Level ("RTL") source code, which is a subset of HDL. See id . at 1:27–31. The patent teaches that prior art HDL simulators were limited because a developer could only view the input and ultimate output of a netlist; there was no way to "step through" the intermediate gates. Id . at 2:1–17. Without the ability to measure intermediate values, "the ability to debug the design at the gate level [was] severely limited." Id . at 2:20–23. Additionally, to the extent intermediate signals could be measured, there was no way to map a value within a netlist to its corresponding RTL logic within the source code. Id . at 2:13–17.

The '376 patent seeks to solve these problems by allowing developers to insert test probes at various stages of a netlist to monitor intermediate values. Id. at 2:30–39; Figs. 1, 2. The probe results are referred to as "instrumentation signals." Id . at 6:32–34. The system correlates instrumentation signals with corresponding portions of the RTL code and displays the results to a user. Id . at 2:30–34. Asserted claim 1 is representative:

1. A method comprising the steps of:

a) identifying at least one statement within a register transfer level (RTL) synthesizable source code; andb) synthesizing the source code into a gate-level netlist including at least one instrumentation signal, wherein the instrumentation signal is indicative of an execution status of the at least one statement.

Id . at 15:1–8 (emphasis added).

Mentor accused Synopsys' ZeBu emulators of infringing. The ZeBu emulators allow developers to insert "flexible probes" and "value-change probes" into a netlist. These probes measure values at various intermediate stages of a netlist. The ZeBu emulators output the test results to a waveform viewer. Mentor's expert Dr. Sarrafzadeh testified that each probe signal shown in the waveform viewer identifies a portion of RTL by name, and the RTL name can be used to locate the corresponding source code.

Synopsys argues it does not infringe because its ZeBu emulators do not "indicate" an RTL statement but rather merely provide the name of a block of RTL that a developer can use to locate corresponding code. It argues "you don't 'indicate' information by providing other data that might help you indirectly figure out the needed information." Synopsys Br. 32. We note at the outset that neither party asked the district court to construe "indicative," and the parties agreed the plain and ordinary meaning of the term governs.2 The question presented on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence for the jury verdict that the ZeBu infringed.

We hold there was substantial evidence to support the jury's infringement verdict. A developer using the ZeBu emulator can create a test file called a "Tcl" file and input test probes into a netlist using the "probe signals" command. J.A. 43212. Dr. Sarrafzadeh testified that the probe signal command creates instrumentation signals when the simulation is run. J.A. 41127:12–41129:14. He then explained how a developer could use the simulation results to locate a particular line of RTL code corresponding to an instrumentation signal. He explained that the Tcl file identifies a particular line of RTL code by identifying the name of a block of code, and then a developer can use that name to locate the specific lines of corresponding RTL code. J.A. 41130:7–21. He testified that "you look at the name of the signal, on flexible probes, for example, and you associate that back to the RTL source." J.A. 42417:3–5; see J.A....

To continue reading

Request your trial
175 cases
  • Malibu Boats, LLC v. Skier's Choice, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 20 Abril 2021
    ...have purchased a product other than its own, absent the infringement." Id. (internal citation omitted). Recently, the Federal Circuit in Mentor Graphics further clarified the first two Panduit factors:We have explained the relationship between the first two Panduit factors. The first factor......
  • In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 7 Septiembre 2018
    ...enjoyed by the infringer. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc. , 318 F.3d 1119, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ; Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("[T]he fact finder's job is to determine what would the patent holder have made (what would his profits have b......
  • W. Plastics, Inc. v. Dubose Strapping, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 25 Septiembre 2018
    ...marketing capability to exploit the demand, and (4) the amount of profit [it] would have made." Id.; see Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Damages under Panduit are not easy to prove. See Mentor Graphics Corp., 851 F.3d at 1285 (collecting case......
  • Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 15 Marzo 2019
    ...the patentee's affirmative allegation of infringement, in this case the date of [Asetek's] counterclaim." Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1275, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2017).19 In particular, AVC's witness testified: "Based on what I know, ENERMAX requested us to ship the products......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • A Primer On Patent Apportionment
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 24 Septiembre 2023
    ...that apportionment is necessary when damages are calculated using a lost profits analysis as Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 6. Garretson Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884). 7. Virnetx, 767 3d at 1327. 8. LaserDynamics, v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d ......
  • Lost Profits ' Who's Sale Is It Anyway?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 Agosto 2022
    ...the patentee can establish the amount of profit it should have made but-for the accused product. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reciting the Panduit factors). An implicit threshold requirement of this legal framework is actually being the entit......
  • MRNA IP 2022 Year In Review: Pioneers Clash In Major Patent Litigations
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 6 Enero 2023
    ...for the product, and (4) the amount of profit it should have made but-for the accused product. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reciting the Panduit With respect to the suits against Moderna, none of Arbutus, Genevant or Alnylam have alleged l......
5 books & journal articles
  • Evolutionary Tales: Times of the Best and Worst
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-1, September 2017
    • 1 Septiembre 2017
    ...then continued to affirm the PTAB’s decision on the finding of anticipation. Various Issues Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1275, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017) . The Federal Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s denial of Synopsis’s (parent company EVE-USA) moti......
  • Economic damages from intellectual property infringement
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Determining Economic Damages Part II. Determining economic damages in commercial litigation
    • 31 Marzo 2021
    ...infringing product was not on the market) and evaluate the infringer’s options carefully as well. In Mentor Graphics v. Eve-USA, Inc. , 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the infringer argued that the lost profits associated with its infringement for the patented product ‘emulator system’ shou......
  • INJURY, INEQUALITY, AND REMEDIES: DEVELOPMENTS IN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES.
    • United States
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...simply speculate that unpatented components have no value and do not affect the royalty rate); Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Eve-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that both reasonable royalty and lost profits awards must carefully apportion value of patented technology ......
  • Lost Profits Damages for Multicomponent Products: Clarifying the Debate.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 71 No. 6, June 2019
    • 1 Junio 2019
    ...Smartphones; Representing One in Six Active Patents Today, TECHDIRT (Oct. 18, 2012, 8:28 AM), https://perma.cc /CQY8-WL2P. (4.) See 851 F.3d 1275,1288,1290 (Fed. Cir. (5.) See id. at 1288. (6.) See id. at 1290. (7.) See id. (8.) See id. at 1287-88. The court's decision is analyzed in more d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT