San Jose--Sept., 23, 1997--Cadence Design Systems Inc. (San Jose) announced that in a unanimous opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered a lower court to enjoin the sale of Avanti Corp.'s ArcCell products which have since been re-named Aquarius. The ruling, which was filed today,has reversed an earlier decision by a District Court,a previous District Court decision as the higher court ruled that Avanti can no longer sell products based on misappropriated software.
Cadence trade secretsSpecifically, the Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to issue an injunction order enjoiningpreventing Avanti from to continue toselling, support and service its ArcCell BV and ArcCell XO products. In addition, the ruling issued guidelines for the District Court to determine if Avanti's current version of its place-and-route product line, renamed Aquarius last year, is based on Cadence code, and if it is, orders the court to enjoin the sale of that product as well.
Cadence had not specifically requested the court to consider an injunction against Aquarius since no products by that name existed at the time of the request.This ruling noted that legal precedents in copyright infringement cases requires that sales of the software in question must be immediately enjoined, and that the lower court should not have taken into consideration Avanti's claim that it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the sale of its products was prevented. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals wrote, "The district court appears to have been strongly influenced by the fact that an injunction would be devastating to Avanti's business, which we hold to be error warranting reversal of the district court's decision." In addition, Tthe ruling also states that monetary damages would not be sufficient reparation for the damages Cadence is suffering; and . recitesThe ruling also supported the the District Court's view that Cadence was likely to prevail on its claim that Avanti's "clean room," supposedly used to remove any questionable code from later generation versions of its product, was inadequate. andAs to such later versions, the Appeals Court wrote, "If the Aquarius software infringes Cadence's copyright, the district court should have entered an order preliminarily enjoining Avanti from selling the software."
the derivative products currently being marketed under the Aquarius brand name warrant consideration under the preliminary injunction ruling.In rebutting Avant!'s arguments, the panel wrote, "Here, Avanti deliberately copied Cadence's code. Avanti was not an innocent infringer that believed that it had purchased the right to use Cadence's copyrighted work."
The ruling indicates that "Avant! deliberately copied Cadence's code" and that "Avant! was not an innocent infringer," supporting opinions found in the earlier ruling on the preliminary injunction request.Cadence originally requested a preliminary injunction against Avanti's ArcCell and ArcCell XO products following a civil suit it filed in December 1995. Since that time, Avant! re-named its ArcCell products Aquarius and Aquarius XO and indicated to the courts that it had put its products through a "clean room" to remove any questionable code. However,Both today's ruling, and the ruling by District Court Judge Ronald Whyte concluded in March 1997, that Cadence was likely to prevail on its claim indicate that the clean room process which yielded Aquarius was inadequate. Further discovery in the case has been stayed following criminal charges filed against Avanti and six of its employees in April 1997, and thus the Aquarius products have yet to be examined.
Cadence Design Systems
San Jose, CA
Return to Headlines