Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Syntronic AB
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 21-cv-03610-SI
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE
v. SERVICE, AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH
SYNTRONIC AB, et al., AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 32 11 On July 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion for Alternative Service for foreign defendant, 12 Syntronic (Beijing) Technology R&D Center Co., Ltd. (Syntronic Beijing), pursuant to Federal Rule 13 of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Dkt. No. 22. Syntronic Beijing opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 29. 14 On August 11, 2021, defendants filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Dismiss 15 the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arguing: (1) defective service with respect to Syntronic 16 Beijing under 12(b)(5); (2) lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to Syntronic Beijing and 17 Syntronic Sweden under 12(b)(2); and (3) the FAC fails to state a claim under 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 18 32. 19 Pursuant to Civil…