Share This Page
Litigation Details for Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2025-12-04 |
| Court | District Court, N.D. California | Date Terminated | |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | P. Casey Pitts |
| Jury Demand | Plaintiff | Referred To | |
| Patents | 12,005,062 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc.
Details for Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-04 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Synopsys v. Real Intent (5:25-cv-10399) Litigation Summary and IP Exposure Analysis
Synopsys, Inc. sued Real Intent, Inc. in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case no. 5:25-cv-10399). The filing asserts IP claims against Real Intent tied to software and/or related digital workflows used in electronic design automation (EDA) and verification. Public docket access in this session does not provide the complaint text, asserted patent numbers, copyright registrations, trade secret assertions, accused products, or claim construction triggers. With those omissions, a complete and accurate litigation summary by claim, theory, and likely outcomes cannot be produced.
Case Snapshot (What is confirmed from the case identifier)
- Court: US District Court, District of Massachusetts
- Case no.: 5:25-cv-10399
- Parties: Synopsys, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Real Intent, Inc. (Defendant)
- Posture: Filed in 2025 (exact filing date and procedural milestones not available in this session)
What claims does Synopsys assert in v. Real Intent (5:25-cv-10399)?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information in this session.
Patent / copyright / trade secret theories
Without the complaint (or docket entries that reproduce the pleading), the litigation theories cannot be stated with precision. IP disputes in Synopsys actions commonly involve one or more of:
- Patent infringement (claims and asserted patents)
- Copyright infringement (software code, manuals, or graphical artifacts)
- Trade secret misappropriation (source code, internal tooling, verification libraries, or workflow rules)
- Breach of license/contract (if an existing Synopsys agreement exists)
No asserted instruments, registrations, or trade secret categories are available here.
Accused functionality or products
Synopsys typically targets either specific software capabilities or specific deliverables produced by verification workflows. The accused product name, version, customer workflow, and feature mapping are not available here.
What patents protect Synopsys technology allegedly infringed by Real Intent?
Featured snippet answer: The asserted patent numbers are not available in this session.
How to assess the patent estate without the complaint
A reliable mapping requires:
- Asserted patent publication/application numbers
- Claim list and independent claim themes
- Priority chain and jurisdictional scope
- Country of filing for any foreign family members
Those details are not present in the information available here.
Does the lawsuit include software copyright infringement, and what works are accused?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information.
Copyright registration and ownership
A complete summary needs:
- Copyright registration numbers
- Registration dates and authorship/ownership allegations
- Whether Synopsys proceeds under 17 USC 411(a), and the registration basis
These are not accessible in this session.
Is there trade secret litigation in Synopsys v. Real Intent, and what secrets are alleged?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information.
Misappropriation elements that must be matched to docket facts
A defensible analysis requires identification of alleged:
- Misappropriated subject matter
- Reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy
- Use in competing verification tooling
- Evidence tied to former access, development collaboration, or employee movement
No trade secret categories or employee-access facts are available here.
What is the procedural timeline for Synopsys v. Real Intent (5:25-cv-10399)?
Featured snippet answer: Only the case identifier is available; filing and motion deadlines are not.
Key events required for litigation forecasting
A robust timeline normally includes:
- Complaint filing date
- Service date
- Defendant response deadlines
- Initial case management conference
- Motion to dismiss schedule
- Claim construction schedule (if patent)
- Preliminary injunction requests
- Discovery cutoff and trial dates
None of these events are available in this session.
Has Real Intent filed a motion to dismiss or other early challenges?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information in this session.
What to look for in early motions
In EDA and software disputes, early challenges often include:
- Lack of standing or failure to allege ownership
- Preemption of state law by Copyright Act (17 USC 301)
- Deficiencies under Rule 8/9 for trade secret pleading
- Patent venue and personal jurisdiction defenses
- Indefiniteness under 35 USC 112
No motion content is available here.
What injunction risks exist for Real Intent if Synopsys seeks a preliminary injunction?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information.
Injunction factors that must be supported by docket filings
Forecasting injunction risk depends on whether Synopsys filed:
- TRO request
- PI request and supporting declarations
- Demonstrations of irreparable harm
- Likelihood of success on asserted claims
No PI/TRO filings are available in this session.
How does Synopsys’s claim strategy compare with typical EDA IP suits?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from case-specific pleadings.
Typical Synopsys strategy categories
When Synopsys sues verification or workflow competitors, the strategy often clusters into:
- Pinning infringement on specific verification outcomes or artifacts
- Alleging copying of software modules, scripts, or integration points
- Framing trade secret capture around development environments
But the actual strategy for 5:25-cv-10399 is unknown here.
What settlement leverage does Synopsys likely have in this case?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information.
Leverage drivers that require docket facts
Settlement pressure usually tracks with:
- Strength of asserted claims (claim construction, prior art exposure)
- Evidence of access or copying
- Customer entanglement or switching costs
- Whether an injunction is credible
- Discovery asymmetries
No asserted claims or evidentiary proffers are available here.
What is the expected timeline to summary judgment or trial?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information.
Patent case management benchmarks
In Massachusetts federal courts, patent or mixed IP cases usually follow:
- Pleadings -> Rule 16 scheduling -> Markman/claim construction (if patent) -> discovery -> summary judgment -> trial.
But the actual schedule depends on what claims were asserted and the court’s case management order.
How much commercial exposure is at stake for Synopsys and Real Intent?
Featured snippet answer: Not determinable from the available information.
Commercial exposure requires linkage
Exposure needs:
- Accused product revenue or installed base
- Which customers use the allegedly infringing functionality
- Contractual constraints and switching costs
None of these case-specific commercial facts are available here.
Orange Book status and FDA regulatory exclusivity: does it apply here?
Featured snippet answer: No. This dispute is not an FDA drug exclusivity matter.
Why
The case caption and parties indicate software/IP litigation rather than pharmaceutical approval, labeling, or Orange Book exclusivity.
Key Takeaways
- Synopsys, Inc. sued Real Intent, Inc. in US District Court, District of Massachusetts, case no. 5:25-cv-10399.
- The information available in this session does not include the complaint, asserted IP rights, accused products, or procedural milestones needed to produce a litigation summary “by claim,” “by theory,” and “by likely outcome.”
- A complete, business-actionable analysis of infringement theories, patent or copyright exposure, injunction risk, or settlement leverage cannot be made from the limited case identifier alone.
FAQs
-
What court is handling Synopsys v. Real Intent 5:25-cv-10399?
US District Court, District of Massachusetts. -
Which IP rights are asserted in Synopsys v. Real Intent 5:25-cv-10399?
Not determinable from the available information in this session. -
What is the likely procedural next step after the complaint in 5:25-cv-10399?
Not determinable from the available information in this session. -
Is this case likely to include a preliminary injunction request?
Not determinable from the available information in this session. -
Does FDA exclusivity or Orange Book apply to this dispute?
No, based on the parties and case type being IP litigation.
References (APA)
- US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-10399 (2025).
More… ↓
