O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP A TTORNEYS A T L AW M ENLO P ARK 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRBDocument50Filed03/24/2006Page1of3

Menlo Park, 2765 SandHillRoad and ROYE.JEWELL RAJEEV MADHAVEN,GREGORYC.WALKER MAGMA DESIGNAUTOMATION,INC., Attorneys forDefendants [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] dfurb Facsimile: Telephone: O SARA M.FOLCHI(S.B.#228540) DALE M.EDMONDSON(S.B.#189793) MEREDITH N.LANDY DAVID M.FURBUSH(S.B.#83447)

’ MELVENY &MYERSLLP LITIGATION AU IN REMAGMADESIGN ALL ACTIONS THIS DOCUMENTRELATESTO: [email protected] TOMATION, INC.SECURITIES

California (650) 473 (650) 473 FOLCHI DECL.INSUPP

94025 - -

NORTHERN DISTRICTOF

(S.B.#136489) 2601 2600 UNITED STATESDISTRI

ORT OF MOTIONTO DIS

Judge: HonorableCharles R.Breyer Place: Courtroom8 Time: 10:00a.m. Hearing Date:June23,2006 3. [Proposed]Order. Motion toDismiss 2. Persons; C C and Securities Laws Complaint forViolationofFederal the ConsolidatedAmendedClassAction 1. [ OF FEDERALSECURITIE ACTION COMPLAINTFOR CONSOLIDATED AMENDED SUPPORT OFMOTIONTO DECLARATION OF CLASS ACTION Case No.C Filed ConcurrentlyWith: ertification ofInterestedEntities orporate DisclosureStatementand Request ForJudicialNotice N A o tice ofMotionandtoDismiss uthorities inSupportThereof CALIFORNIA CT COURT

- MISS 05 - 2394 ; M -

C

; - and 05 emorandum of -

CRB - ] 2394 SARA M.FOLCHI

-

CRB

S LAWS DISMISSTHE VIOLATION

in Supportof CLASS

P or ; oints

IN O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP A TTORNEYS A T L AW M ENLO P ARK 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRBDocument50Filed03/24/2006Page2of3

District CourtfortheNorthern DistrictofCalifornia Design Aut Design Automation,Inc.’s AnswertoComplaintandCounterclaims, original certifiedcopyofthedocumentdescribed in¶3andbelow. Northern DistrictofCalifornia requested certifiedcopiesfromthe California filed onOctober21,2004intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforNorthernof and Counterclaims,” obtain acertifiedcopyof http://www.magma Magma’s websiteat Ginneken, PhD portion ofthe competently testifythereto. personal knowledgeofthemattersrecitedhereinand,ifcalledtodoso,couldandwould Consolidated AmendedClassActionComplaintforViolationofFederalSecuritiesLaws (“defendants”) Automation, Inc.(“Magma”),RajeevMadhavan,GregoryC.Walker,andRoyE.Jewell for licensed topracticebeforeallcourtsoftheStateCaliforniaandUnitedStatesDistrictCourt

theNorthernDistrictofCalifornia.Iamanattorneyrecordfordefendants 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. I, SaraM.Folchi,herebydeclareasfollows:

.

omation, Inc. Transcript oftheVideotapedDepositionUponOralExaminationLukasVan . Attached heretoas Ms. Coakleyinformedmethatsheasked On oraboutMarch20,2006,IdirectedJaneCoakley,aparalegalinouroffice,to Attached heretoas I aman FOLCHI DECL.INSUPP , datedApril26,2005and27,2005.Iobtainedthisdocumentfrom I providethisdeclarationinsupportofdefendants’ - da.com/articles/patent/vanGinnekenVolume2.pdf onMarch10 http:/ Synopsys, Inc.v.MagmaDesignAutomation, associateatthelawfirmofO’ , CaseNo.04 “Defendant /www.magma DECLA

, andonorabout Exhibit Exhibit clerk’s officeoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt for the RATION OFSARAM.FOLCHI ORT OF MOTIONTO DIS Magma DesignAutomation,Inc.’sAnswertoComplaint - 3923 MMC,filedonOctober 21,2004intheUnitedStates - da.com/articles/patent/vanGinnekenVolume1.pdf, and B A isatrueandcorrectcopyof“Defendant isatrueandcorrectcopyof -

1 March 21

-

.

Melveny &MyersLLP,andanattorney that , 2006,sheprovidedme M a messengerserviceobtainthe ISS - C

Motion to ” - 05

Synopsys, Inc.v.Magma , CaseNo.04

- 2394 the publiclyavailable - CRB Dismiss the Magma Design

with the , 2006. - 3923 MMC, Magma .

I have O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP A TTORNEYS A T L AW M ENLO P ARK 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRBDocument50Filed03/24/2006Page3of3

Synopsys, Inc.v.MagmaDesignAutomation, 2006. http://www.magma dated September17,2004 Dated: foregoing istrueandcorrect. 2006. system oftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforNorthernCaliforniaonMarch23, p 2005 6, signaturepage,and age 6oft intheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforNorthernofCalifornia

7. 6 March I declareunderpenaltyofperjurythelawsUnitedStateso .

he declarationreferencesExhibit7.

24 Attached heretoas Attached heretoas FOLCHI DECL , 2006 - da.com/c/@Cw9SZ8J53tW1U/Pages/PRSynopsisSuit.html Exhibit 7tothe“D

. Iobtai . INSUPPORT OFMOTI

Exhibit D Exhibit ned thisdocumentfromMagma’swebsiteat e claration ofLukasVanGinneke C isatrueandcorrectcopyof are -

I obtainedthisdocumentfromtheECF 2 trueandcorrectcop

- By: , CaseNo.04

ON TO DISMISS

/s/ SaraM.Folchi Sara M.Folchi - 3923 MMC,filedon - C - ies 05 - of 2394

Magma pressrelease n the captionpage,page , ” - CRB of thatdeclaration, . f Americathatthe onMarch10, Paragraph 36

April 11, /PACER on

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISC O ------

SYNOPSIS, INC ., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

-vs- C04-03923 MMC

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION , INC ., a Delaware corporation, and LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN,

Defendants .

------Videotaped Deposition Upon Oral Examinatio n

of

LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, PhD, VOLUME I ------

9 :15 a .m .

April 26, 2005

1420 Fifth Avenu e

Seattle, Washington

CHERYL MACDONALD, RMR, CR R COURT REPORTER

1

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348818b443 APPEARANCES LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 4/26/0 5

FOR SYNOPSYS : EXHIBIT INDEX (Cont'd . ) MICHAEL EDELMA N Attorney at Law LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT 975 Page Mill Road No . 2 3 ...... 127 Palo Alto, California 94304.1013 and No . 24 ...... 145 CHRIS SCOTF GRAHA M Attorney at Law No. 25 ...... 14 8 LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT 1117 California Avenue No. 26 15 1 Palo Alto, California 94304-1106

FOR MAGMA : No . 27 ...... 16 8 GEORGE A. RILEY PETER OBSTLER NO . . . .28...... 18...... 1 Attorneys at La w O'MELVENY & MYERS No. 29 ...... 217 Embarcadero Center Wes t 275 Battery Street EXAMINATION INDEX Suite 2600 BY MR. RILEY: PAGE(S): 6 - 226 San Francisco, California 94111-3305

FOR THE WITNESS : CONFIDENTIAL SESSION: PAGE(S) : 154 - 180

EDWARD W . BULCHI S Attorney at-La w DORSEY & WHITNEY 1420 Fifth Avenu e Suite 340 0 Seattle, Washington 9810 1

ALSO PRESENT : BROOK YOUNG, Videographe r STEPHEN MELVIN

2 4

LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 4/26/0S 1 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, witness herein, having been first 09 :02 :4 3 gMiBrrINDEX duly sworn by the Notary, deposed 09 :02:4 3 2 and said as follows : 09 :02:4 3 pMiBCF NO . PAGE 3 09:02:4 3 No.1 ...... is 4 MR . EDELMAN : Before we begin, I just wanted 09 :16:5 7 No. 2 ...... 32 5 to make dear that we are designating the transcript as 09 :16:5 8 6 attorney and consultants only under the proteotlve 09:17:02 7 order. 09 :17:04 No. 5 ...... 37 5 8 MR. BULCHIS: Before we begin, I would like 09:17 :05 W. 6 49 9 to make it dear that we would not abide by any 09 :17 :06 7 53 10 protective order or undertake any new obligation of 09 :17 :08 1 1 confidentiality . Mr . van Ginneken already has an 09 :17 :1 1 12 obligation of confidentiality with respect to Synopsys 09 :17 :14 ..... 81 13 technology, certain technology that is still 09 :17:16 No. 11 ...... ".....""".... 81 14 confidential . We will, of course, abide by that 09 :17:20 ...... 12 """" 81 15 agreement, but we will not undertake any new 09 :17:24 No. 13 ...... 82 16 confidentiality obligations. 09 :17 :26 No. 14 ...... 85 • 17 MR . RILEY : For the record, we would request 09 :17 :30 15 ...... N0. 87 18 that you withdraw that designation . It is a violation 09:17 :33 No.16 "'•'•""...1 e9 19 of Judge Zimmerman's standing orders on the designation 09 :17 :35 Na 17 ...... 91 20 of materials as confidential . 09 :17 :38 N0' is """""" ..."". 94 21 MR. EDELMAN: The protective order that the 09 :17 :4 0 NO, 19 ...... 98 22 pa rties have agreed to, with the exception of one 09 :17 :4 2 No. 20 ...... 99 No 21 ...... 109 23 provision that's not at issue here, explicitly provides 09:17 :4 5 No. 22 ...... 112 -24 the parties can designate entire transcripts as 09 :17:49 25 confidential, obviously subject to later revision as the 09:17:5 1 3 5

2 (Pages 2 to 5) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 parties review the transcript . In fact, that was a 09 :17 :55 1 if it occurs to you during the course of the day that 09 :20:07 2 point that was fairly extensively negotiated between 09 :17 :59 2 you would like to go back and clarify or explain an 09 :20 :10 3 myself and counsel for Magma, and that's what the 09:18:02 3 answer, would you let me know and we'll try to go back ©9 :20:12 4 parties agreed to . 09 :18 :06 4 and do that, okay? 09 :20 :16 5 MR. BULCHIS: Regardless of what agreement 09 :18:07 5 A. Okay. 09:20:18 6 has been made between the parties in this case or what 09 :18 :09 6 MR. RILEY : All of that material is 09 :20 :20 7 order has been issued by the court, as a nonparty we do 09 :18 :11 7 confidential that I just covered, Mr . Edelman? 09:20 :2 1 8 not intend to keep this deposition confidential other 09 :18 :16 8 MR. EDELMAN : I'm marking the entire 09 :20 :26 9 than our obligations to Magma/Synopsys because of other 09 :18:18 9 transcript as confidential so we don't have to do this 09 :20:27 10 agreements . 09 :18 :23 10 question by question. If you would like to double the 09 :20 :30 11 09:18 :26 11 length of the deposition and do that, it would be 09 :20:33 12 EXAMINATION 09 :18:26 12 interesting to me . 09 :20:36 13 BY MR . RILEY : 09:18 :26 13 Q. Could you please give your education since 09 :20 :37 14 Q . Dr. van Ginneken, I would like to start with 09 :18 :26 14 you were In college? 09:20:3 9 15 some preliminaries about the deposition. You understand 09 :18 :30 15 A. Since I was in college? 09:20:40 16 that you're giving oath here -- you have been given an 09 :18 :34 16 Q . Yeah, including your college education . 09:20 :41 17 oath and you're testifying under penalty of perjury . Do 09 :18 :38 17 A . Well, I went to Eindhoven University in the 09:20 :43 18 you understand that? 09 :18 :41 18 Netherlands . Its located in Eindhoven. I did both my 09 :20 :49 19 A. Yes, I do . 09:18 :42 19 graduate and undergraduate there. My degree Is In 09 :20:55 20 Q. It's very important that you and I understand 09 :18 :43 20 electrical engineering . So I have a doctorate in 09:21 :03 21 each other . I have a tendency to-talk softly, and I 09 :18 :46 21 electrical engineering from University of Eindhoven . I 09 :21 :11 22 know you do as well, but we both need to keep our voices 09:18 :50 22 started in Eindhoven in 1978 and I got my doctorate in 09 :21 :1 5 23 up. Can you agree to do that? 09 :18 :53 23 1989 . 09 :21 :20 24 A, Yes . 09 :18 :55 24 Q. So Dr . van Ginneken, you started university 09:21 :2 0 25 Q . And if my questions are at all unclear, or if 09:18:55 25 in 1978 . Do you recall when you got your undergraduate 09 :21 :2 6 6 8 i.

1 , its not clear what I'm referring to, will you please 09:18 :59 1 degree? 09:21 :30 2 let me know so that I can rephrase the question? 09 :19 :02 2 A . In 1984. 09 :21 :33 3 A. Yes, I will . 09 :19 :05 3 Q. And that was in electrical engineering? 09 :21 :3 7 4 Q. Also, from time to time, well be referring 09 :19 :06 4 A. Yes . 09 :21 :39 5 to documents, and I know you've had an opportunity to 09 :19:08 5 Q. And then you continued on with your graduate 09:21 :39 6 review a number of documents before the deposition . If 09 :19 :12 6 studies and received your PhD in 1989 ; Is that correct? 09 :21 :4 2 7 you would like to look at a document or review a 09 :19 :15 7 A. That's correct, 09 :21 :4 6 8 document that you've seen or perhaps you haven't seen 09:19 :19 8 Q . And did you write a thesis while you were 09 :21 :46 9 yet, would you please let me know and we'll try to do 09 :19:21 9 there? 09 :21 :50 10 . our best to accommodate you on that. 09:19 :24 10 A. Yes, I did . 09:21 :5 0 11 A. Yes. 09:19 :26 11 Q . What was your thesis on? 09 :21 :5 1 12 Q. This Is also not an endurance contest. It's 09 :19 :26 12 A. My thesis was generally about automatic 09 :21 :5 3 13 Important that you by and give full and accurate 09:19:31 13 layout design, physical design, and it covered topics 09 :21 :57 14 testimony, and If you need to take a break at any time, 09 :19 :34 14 such as floor planning, routing, and module generation . 09 :22 :02 15 will you please let me know and we'll do the best we can 09 :19 :38 15 Q. Did you do work in logic synthesis while you 09 :22 :1 1 16 to accommodate you . 09 :19 :41 16 were in the university? 09 :22 :1 7 17 A. Okay . 09 :19 :43 17 A. Yes, I did . 09 :22 :1 9 18 Q. Your deposition today is being videotaped, 09 :19 :43 18 Q. What do you mean by logic synthesis? 09 :22 :2 1 19 but the official record of the deposition is the 09 :19 :46 19 A . Logic synthesis is usually understood to mean 09 :22 :23 20 transcript which would be prepared by the court 09 :19 :48 20 the process of automatically modifying and optimizing a 09 :22 :28 21 reporter, You will be given an opportunity after the 09:19:51 21 net list or circuit description of digital logic . 09:22:34 22 transcript is prepared to correct the transcript, but if 09 :19:53 22 Q. And how does that differ from physical 09 :22:39 23 you do that, we can comment on the fact that you waited 09 :19:57 23 design? 09:22:43 24 until you had an opportunity to review the transcript to 09:20:01 24 A. Physical design includes also placing or 09 :22:44 25 change your answers . In light of that, I would ask you 09:20 :03 25 locating the circuit elements in a two-dimensional plane 09:22:52 7 9

3 (Pages 6 to 9 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 representing the tip surface . 09:22 :57 1 A. Yes . 09 :26:35 2 Q. When you graduated in 1989 with your PhD, Dr . 09:23:02 2 Q . How long did you work in the Design Compiler 09 :26:35 3 van Ginneken, what did you do? 09:23 :08 3 Group? 09 :26 :37 4 A. After I received my PhD I joined IBM . 09 :23 :10 4 A. A little bit more than a year . 09 :26 :41 5 Q. What division or group did you work with at 09 :23 :19 5 Q . So sometime in the summer of 1996 you left 09 :26 :43 6 IBM when you joined? 09 :23:23 6 Design Compiler? 09 :26 :52 7 A . I worked in the research division in 09 :23 :23 7 A. Yeah, and I changed to the Advanced 09 :26:54 8 Yorktown Heights, New York at Thomas ] . Watson Research 09 :23 :26 8 Technology Group at Synopsys. 09 :26:58 9 Center, and I worked in computer science department in 09 :23 :31 9 Q . And while you were with the Design Compiler 09:27-01 10 the logic synthesis group . 09 :23:36 10 Group for the first year you were at Synopsys, what were 09 :27 :08 11 Q . Did you have a title when you first joined 09 :23 :39 11 your duties? 09 :27 :10 12 the logic synthesis group? 09 :23 :45 12 A. I worked on electrical optimization 09 :27:1 2 13 A. When I first joined I was a post doc . Later 09 :23:48 13 algorithm, based on rewiring. Its a Boolean 09 :27:1 6 14 I became permanent employee, and my title was research 09 :23:54 14 optimization algorithm . 09:27 :19 15 staff member . 09 :23:58 15 Q . What else did you work on? 09:27 :2 9 16 Q. And how long were you a research staff 09 :23 :59 16 A. That was my main duty . After a while I 09 :27 :32 17 member? 09 :24 :02 17 became involved in the next generation synthesis system 09 :27 :36 I8 A. Approximately five years, five and a half . 09:24 :02 18 project. 09 :27 :43 19 Q. So roughly 1994, 1995? 09 :24 :13 19 Q. The NGSS project? 09 :27 :44 20 A. Until 1995, yes . - 09 :24 :21 20 A. NGSS project . 09 :27 :4 6 21 Q. So your title remained as a member of the 09 :24:23 21 Q. And what was the NGSS project? 09:27 :48 22 research staff until you left IBM in 1995? 09 :24 :27 22 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 09:27:5 2 :27 :56 23 A. Yes . 09:24 :31 23 Q. He just made an objection. Please go ahead 09 24 Q . What projects did you work on while you were 09 :24 :31 24 and answer. 09 :27 :5 8 25- at IBM? Can you generally describe them, please. 09 :24:41 25 A . The NGSS project was a joint project with IBM 09 :27 :5 8 10 12

1 A. First I worked on the LSS, logic synthesis 09 :24:44 1 Corporation to develop a new logic synthesis system . 09 :28 :01 2 system, which was the old system written in PL1 . 09 :24 :51 2 Q. And what were your duties in connection with 09 :28 :07 3 Secondly, I worked on the BooleDozer, which was also a 09 :25 :00 3 the NGSS project, the joint project with IBM? 09 :28:1 5 4 logic synthesis system but a new one designed to run on 09 :25 :04 4 A . Well, my duties were a moving -- you know, I 09 :28 :2 0 5 work stations, or new at that time . And in '93 I worked 09 :25 :08 5 had various duties and they changed over time . 09:28:28 6 at the Somerset Design Center in Austin, Texas working 09:25 :13 6 Q. Could you summarize them for me, please. 09:28 :30 7 the logic synthesis in support of the PowerPC design 09 :25 :19 7 A . I did research on constant delay . I did 09 :28:33 8 effort. 8 other things such as integrate timing engine, support of 09 :28 :4 0 9 Q . And after '93 where did you work? 09 :25 :34 9 the source code control system, parse logic synthesis 09 :28 :52 10 A, I returned to Yorktown and continued to work 09:25 :36 10 libraries, create delay models. 09 :28:59 4 11 on BooleDozer. 09 :25 :39 11 Q. And all of those tasks were part of the joint 09 :29 :0 12 Q . And when did you leave IBM? 09:25 :42 12 project with IBM? 09 :29 :06 8 13 A . I left IBM In '95, in June of '95. 09 :25 :49 13 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 09:29 :0 . 09 :29 :10 14 Q . And where did you go when you left IBM? 09 :25 :56 14 A . Yes : Also calls for expert opinion . 09:29 :13 15 A. I joined Synopsys . . 09:26:01 15 MR. EDELMAN 16 Q . And what was your position at Synopsys when 09 :26 :04 16 Q. And when you went to the advanced research or 09 :29 :15 4 17 you joined In 1995? 09 :26 :07 17 Advanced Technology Group at Synopsys, what were your 09 :29 :2 18 A . I think my title was technical leader . 09:26 :10 18 duties? 09 :29:26 7 19 Q . And what group or office were you assigned 09 :26 :20 19 A. My duty was to work on the NGSS project . 09:29:2 3 20 to? 09 :26 :22 20 Q. So you continued to work on NGSS, you were ,09 :29 :3 21 A. I worked in the Design Compiler Group at 09 :26 :23 21 just with a different group? 09 :29 :35 7 22 first. 09 :26 :28 22 A. Yes . 09 :29 :3 :29:38 23 Q. Design Compiler is a product, is it not? 09 :26:29 23 Q . And were your tasks generally the same as you 09 2 24 A . It's a product . 09:26:32 24 just described? 09 :29 :4 :29 :43 25 Q. It's a logic synthesis product? 09 :26 :32 25 A. Yes . Some of these tasks that I just 09 11 13

4 (Pages 10 to 13) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 described didn't start until I was at Advanced 09 :29:46 1 of the exhibits you attempted to file under sea], but 09 :32:54 2 Technology Group already for a while, 09 :29:49 2 this is all very much public . 09:32 :5 7 3 Q. Which task started when you were at the 09 :29:52 3 MR. EDELMAN : That's fine . 04:33:00 4 Advanced Technology Group? 09 :29:55 4 Q. Is that your signature on the last page, Dr . 09:33:05 5 A. The task of Integrating a timing engine, 09:29:58 5 van Ginneken? 09 :33 :0 7 6 supporting source code control, parsing libraries . 09:30 :02 6 A. Yes, it is. 09 :33 :09 7 Q. And when did you leave Synopsys? 09:30 :12 7 Q. Did you compose the sentences that are in 09 :33 :1 0 8 A. I left Synopsys in May of '97. 09 :30:17 8 this declaration? 09 :33 :1 5 9 Q . And you joined Magma in May of '97, correct? 09 :30:23 9 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 09 :33:1 7 10 A. Yes. 09 :30 :31 10 as to the term compose. 09 :33 :1 8 11 Q. And when did you leave Magma? 09:30 :31 11 A. No, I generally did not. 09 :33 :2 1 12 A. I left Magma in 2002, I believe it was 09 :30:34 12 Q. Who did? Who wrote that? 09 :33:23 13 October, 09:30:41 13 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for 09:33:25 14 Q. And are you currently employed? 09 :30 :42 14 speculation, vague and ambiguous. 09:33 :2 6 15 A. No. 09:30:47 15 A . I believe Synopsys did . Or Synopsys counsel 09 :33 :2 8 16 Q, Are you working as a consultant or a 09 :30 :47 16 did . 09 :33 :3 1 17 contractor? 09:30 :53 17 Q. Could you explain to me the process by which 09 :33 :3 1 18 A. Somewhat. 09 :30 :55 18 Synopsys's counsel wrote the sentences that are in 09 :33 :34 19 MR. RILEY : I'd like to have this marked as 09 :31 :00 19 Exhibit 1, your declaration? 09:33:3 8 20 our first exhibit . It is the declaration of Lukas van 09 :31 ;01 20 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for 09 :33 :39 21 Ginneken, The version I'm having marked has no exhibit 09 :31 :06 21 speculation . 09:33:4 1 22 because Synopsys has filed some of the exhibits under 09 :31 :11 22 A. Well, the process was that Synopsys put a 09:33 :4 2 23 seal . 09 :31 :15 23 declaration together and we went over this declaration 09 :33 :52 24 MR . BULCHIS : Counsel, I can provide a 09 :31 :20 24 and struck certain parts and also revised certain parts. 09 :33 :57 25 nonconfidential copy If you'd like. 09 :31 :21 25 Q . And did this take place with paper documents 09 :34 :0 5 14 16

I MR . RILEY : Why don't we work off of this 09 :31 :23 1 going back and forth? 09 :34 :09 2 one, if they have to work on... 09:31 :24 2 A. No, This was on a laptop. 09.34 :1 0 3 MR . EDELMAN: Just so the record is clear, 09 :31 :27 3 Q. So before you signed It you were never given 09 :34 :1 2 4 Synopsys believes this declaration itself Is 09 :31 :29 4 paper drafts of the declaration? 09 :34 :1 6 5 confidential . And we would mark it as such under the 09 :31 :32 5 A. That's correct . 09 :34 :18 6 protective order . 09:31 :36 6 Q . So, to your knowledge, there are no drafts of 09 :34 :18 7 MR . RILEY: Even though it was publicly 09 :31 :38 7 the original version that they gave you to sign? 09 :34 :22 8 filed? 09 :31 :39 8 A. I have not seen any drafts . 09:34 :2 5 9 MR . EDELMAN : Yes . 09 :31 :41 9 Q. Why did you sign the declaration which is 09 :34 :27 10 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 1 .) 09:31 :54 10 Exhibit No . 1? 09 :34:34 11 Q. Exhibit 1 is the publicly filed declaration 09 :31:55 11 A. It was part of a deal with Synopsys . 09 :34 :3 5 12 of Lukas van Ginneken. It is signed and dated . If you 09 :32 :06 12 Q . And what was that deal? 09 :34:40 13 look there at the last page of Exhibit 1, Dr . van 09 :32 :17 13 A. Synopsys would drop their lawsuit against me 09 :34 :4 1 14 Ginneken, It's signed and dated by you on March 10, 09 :32 :20 14 in return of -- for the declaration, 09 :34 :46 15 2005. Do you see that? 09 :32 :24 15 Q. And that in fact happened? 09 :34 :5 1 16 A. Yes, I do . 09 :32 :26 16 A. Yes . 09 :34:5 3 17 MR . BULCHIS : Counsel, just so were clear on 09 :32 :28 17 Q. Synopsys filed a lawsuit against you, you 09 :34 :54 18 this, I would like to know whether Synopsys's counsel is 09 :32 :29 18 signed the declaration, and in return Synopsys dropped 09 :34 :58 19 aware that this declaration is available on the Yahoo 09:32 :33 19 the lawsuit against you? 09 :35 :02 20 web site. Does counsel still consider it confidential? 09 :32 :36 20 MR, EDELMAN : Objection, compound, vague and 09 :35 :03 21 MR . EDELMAN : Actually, I was thinking of the 09 :32 :39 21 ambiguous. 09:35 :05 22 issue that George raised with respect to certain of the 09 :32 :41 22 A. Yes. 09 :35 :0 5 23 exhibits, but the declaration itself, I believe the 09 :32 :44 23 Q. Did you feel pressured or intimidated to sign 09 :35 :05 24 entirety of the declaration is in the public domain . 09:32 :49 24 the declaration? 09 :35 :09 25 MR . RILEY : It is filed publicly. A couple 09:32 :51 25 MR, EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 09 :35 :12 15 fl7

5 (Pages 14 to 17 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 A. Yes, I did . 09 :35 :13 1 copy of that performance review before you signed the 09 :38 :05 2 Q . Why? 09:35 :13 2 declaration? 09 :38 .08 3 A . Because it was uncomfortable being in a 09 :35 :14 3 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection, vague and 09 :38 :11 4 lawsuit. 09 :35 :18 4 ambiguous. 09 :38 :13 5 Q . How much in terms of damages was Synopsys 09:35 :19 5 A. No. 09:38:1 3 6 seeking against you? 09 :35 :23 6 Q, In paragraph 22 there's a reference to a 09 :38 :13 7 A. Suggesting 100 million in damages . 09 :35 :24 7 draft patent application entitled "System and Method for 09 :38 :17 8 Q . Before you signed it, did Synopsys's counsel 09 :35 :28 8 Constant Delay Synthesis ." Did Synopsys's counsel 09 :38 :22 9 provide you with a copy so that you could go home, think 09 :35 :33 9 provide you with a copy of that draft patent application 09 :38:28 10 about it, reflect on it before you signed it? 09 :35 :36 10 before you signed the declaration? 09 :38 :32 11 A. No. 09:35 :39 11 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection, vague and 09 :38 :36 12 Q . I'm sorry? 09 :35:39 12 ambiguous. 09 :38 :36 13 A. No, they did not, 09 :35 :40 13 A. No. 09:38:39 14 Q . There are a number of exhibits that are 09 :35 :41 14 Q. Paragraph 24 refers to a white paper. It 09:38 :39 15 referred to in the declaration which we have not 09 :35 :46 15 says, "In addition to the preparation of the draft 09 :38:49 16 attached because some have been designated as 09 :35 :49 16 patent applications, I also authored a 'white paper' on 09 :38 :51 17 confidential, and I'd like to go through those and ask 09 :35 :51 17 the fixed timing inventions." 09:38:5 5 18 you a couple of questions about them . 09:35 :53 18 Before you signed the declaration, did 09 :38:58 19 If you look at paragraph 2 of your 09 :35 :58 19 Synopsys's counsel provide you with a copy of that white 09:39 :00 20 declaration, which Is Exhibit 1, it says, "On or about 09 :36 :02 20 paper? 09 :39 :04 21 May 17, 1995, I signed a proprietary information and 09 :36:07 21 A. No. 09:39 :04 22 inventions agreement, (the agreement attached as Exhibit 09 :36 :13 22 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 09 :39 :05 23 1 hereto) . I understood that signing .the agreement was 09:36 :16 23 Q . In paragraph 25, there is a reference to a 09 :39 :08 24 a condition to my employment by Synopsys ." 09 :36 :19 24 draft paper entitled "Driving on the left-hand side of 09 :39 :14 25 Before you signed the declaration which is 09 :36:23 25 the Performance Speedway." Before you signed your 09 :39 :17 18 20

1 Exhibit 1, did Synopsys provide you with a copy of your 09 :36 :25 1 declaration, did Synopsys's counsel provide you with a 09 :39 :21 2 proprietary information and inventions agreement? 09 :36 :31 2 copy of that paper? 09 :39 :24 3 A. I believe I did have a copy at the time . 09 :36 :34 3 MR. EDELMAN : Same objection, vague and 09 :39 :26 4 Q . If you turn and look at paragraph 15, there 09:36 :40 4 ambiguous . 09:39 :27 5 is a reference to an invention disclosure form, which is 09 :36 :49 5 A. No. 09 :39 :28 6 purportedly one that you filled out in early 1996 . 09 :36 :54 6 Q . Referring to paragraph 23, this is a 09:39:28 7 Before you signed your declaration did Synopsys counsel 09 :37 :00 7 reference to another draft patent application entitled 09 :39 :50 8 provide you with a copy of the invention disclosure 09:37 :03 8 "Method for Achieving Timing Closure of Digital Networks 09:39 :53 9 form? 09 :37 :08 9 and Method for Area Optimization of Digital Networks 09:39 :57 10 A. I don't recall that, no. 09 :37 :08 10 Under Timing Closure ." 09:40 :00 11 Q . Turn to paragraph 19, please . Paragraph 19 09:37 :10 11 Before you signed your declaration, did 09 :40:02 12 refers to a performance review for the period March 1st, 09 :37 :20 12 Synopsys provide you with a copy of that draft patent 09 :40 :05 13 1996 to April 1st, 1997. Did Synopsys's counsel provide 09 :37 :25 13 application? 09:40:0 8 14 you with a copy of your performance review for the 09 :37 :30 14 MR. EDELMAN : Same objection, vague and 09 :40 :09 15 period of March 1st, 1996 to April 1st, 1997 before you 09 :37 :33 15 ambiguous . 09 :40 :10 16 signed the declaration? 09 :37 :38 16 A. No. 09 :40 :10 17 MR. EDELMAN : Objection . 09 :37 :39 17 Q. I'm sorry, your answer was no? 09:40 :11 18 A. No. 09:37 :40 18 A. "No." 09 :40:1 3 19 MR. EDELMAN : Vague and ambiguous to the 09 :37:41 19 Q. Paragraph 36 refers to a letter from the 09 :40 :13 20 extent the term "you" is unclear whether it refers to 09 :37 :41 20 Pillsbury law firm dated April 18th, 1997 . Before you 09 :40 :28 21 Mr. van Ginneken or his counsel or both . 09:37 :44 21 signed your declaration, did Synopsys provide you with a 09:40 :35 22 Q . Referring to Exhibit 20 -- I'm sorry -- 09 :37 :48 22 copy of that letter? 09 :40 :3 9 23 paragraph 20, excuse me . It says it refers to another 09 :37:52 23 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection, vague and 09 :40 :42 24 performance review which Is purportedly attached as 09 :37 :57 24 ambigu ou s . 09 :40 :43 25 Exhibit 4 . Did Synopsys's counsel provide you with a 09 :38 :01 25 A . No . 09 :40 :44 19 21

6 (Pages 18 to 21) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Q. In paragraph 31 of the declaration, Or. van 09:40 :44 1 Q. Why? 09:44 :28 2 Ginneken, you state that "Magma and I used the 09 :40 :56 2 A. I, you know, I was not really looking for a 09:44 :28 3 inventions that I conceived while employed at 5ynopsys 09 :41:02 3 change, and I was a little unexpected . 09:44:39 4 as a technical foundation for Magma's products ." 09 :41 :05 4 Q . But at some point you must have gotten 09 :44 :42 5 What do you mean by technical foundation? 09 :41:10 5 interested in the offer? 09:44:44 6 A. I meant by technical foundation as a -- using 09 :41 :13 6 A. Yes. After a while I thought it over and 1 09 :44:46 7 the invention as an organizing principles of -- for the 09 :41 :20 7 called him back and called him to see if the offer was 09 :44:5 0 8 general methodology. Inventions give a different point 09:41 :23 8 still available . 09 :44:56 9 of view on the general process of logic synthesis and 09:41 :29 9 Q. When did you recontact him? 09 :44:5 8 10 placement of physical design . And by using that point 09 :41:34 10 A. I believe that was sometime In April . 09:45:0 1 11 of view It gives structure to the overall methodology, 09 :41:38 11 'Q. And what led to you changing your mind about 09:45 :06 12 which is sometimes hard to come by . The point of view 09 :41 :43 12 this offer? 09 :45:10 13 didn't really change the 09:41 :48 13 A. I was sort of unhappy with the project at 09:45 :14 14 overall problem, but it more dearly described what 09 :41 :49 14 Synopsys, and didn't feel that this was a good place for 09 :45 :19 15 should be done at what point and why . 09 :41 :54 15 me. 09 :45 :29 16 Q. And can we refer to that different point of 09 :41 :58 16 Q. And why did you feel that way? 09 :45 :29 17 view as constant delay synthesis? 09:42:01 17 A, There were a number of things at Synopsys. 09:45 :3 1 18 A. Yes. 09:42 :04 18 The project was very political. There was a lot of 09 :45 :3 5 19 Q. Now, when you came to work at Magma in May of 09 :42 :05 19 tension between Synopsys and IBM . There was tension 09 :45 :40 20 1997, were you recruited to the company? 09:42 :22 20 between NGSS and Design Compiler. There were people 09 :45:44 21 A. Yes. 09 :42 :27 21 around that didn't really want the project to succeed . 09:45 :47 22 Q. Who recruited you? 09 :42 :28 22 Management had increased expectations of the project 09 :45 :5 1 23 A. Rajeev Madhavam . 09:42 :31 23 well beyond what I thought was reasonable, 09 :45 :55 24 Q . Did you know Mr . Madhavam before he started 09 :42 :40 24 Q . And you say there was tensions with IBM. 09 :46:05 25 to recruit you? 09 :42 :44 25 What do you mean by that? 09:46 22 :07 24

1 A. Yes, 141d . 09 :42:45 1 A. It was a joint project, but there was always 09 :46 :08 2 Q. How did you know him? 09 :42 :46 2 a question, you know, what should be disclosed, and 09 :46:1 3 3 A. In 1995, when I joined Synopsys, I 09 :42 :48 3 people were careful about what was communicated with 09 :46 :17 4 Interviewed also at Ambit, and Rajeev was at that time 09:42 :52 4 IBM. 09 :46:23 5 the president and/or CEO of Amblt . So I interviewed at 09 :42:57 5 Q. Did anyone ever explain to you why you should 09 :46:25 6 Ambit, and they make me an offer In 1995, but I chose to 09 :43 :02 6 be careful about what's communicated to IBM? 09 :46:3 1 7 join Synopsys Instead at that time . 09 :43 :06 7 A. In general terms, no . 09:46 :34 8 Q. Now, going Into the process by which Mr. 09:43 :17 8 Q. Did you ever come to any understanding about 09 :46 :37 9 Madhavam recruited you, did he first contact you or did 09:43 :20 9 that? 09 :46 :3 9 10 you contact him? 09 :43:23 10 A. Well, you know, I think it was just a general 09 :46:39 11 A. He contacted me . 09 :43 :26 11 feeling. People have, you know, two different groups, 09 :46:46 12 Q. How did he contact you, do you recall? 09 :43 :27 12 and you're required to disclose information, but your 09 :46 :51 13 A. He called me up . 09:43 :28 13 fate Is still tied up with the fate of the respective 09 :46 :56 14 Q . Do you recall when that occurred? 09:43 :30 14 companies, and people -- you know, the loyalty to each 09 :46 :58 15 A. Roughly that was February or March of '97 . 09 :43:34 15 people's companies surpassed loyalty to the joint 09 :47:02 16 Q. And do you recall the substance of the 09 :43:51 16 project, I would say . 09:47 :06 17 inltlal conversation? 09 :43 :53 17 Q. So when you called Mr. Madhavam back to say 09:47 :0 9 18 A. Well, at the time Mr . Madhavam had left Ambit 09 :43 :54 18 that you might be interested that was in mid April of 09 :47:16 19 Design Automation, and he was looking to start a new 09 :43 :57 19 1997? 09 :47 :18 20 company, which was going to be called Magma, and which 09 :44:01 20 A. Yes. I don't remember the exact date, but 09 :47:19 21 was going to be Integrating logic synthesis and physical 09 :44 :07 21 I'm fairly sure It was about eight or nine days after 09 :47 :21 22 design, and he was recruiting engineers, and he was 09 :44 :11 22 Easter, whatever day Easter was on that year. 09 :47:25 23 calling up people to find people to join his startup . 09 :44:18 23 Q. And can you recall the substance of that 09 :47 :2 8 24 Q. Were you Interested In this project? 09 :44 :23 24 conversation? 09 :47 :3 0 25 A. Initially I was not . 09 :44 :26 25 A. Well, basically L asked him if the offer was 09 :47:3 1 23 25

7 (Pages 22 to 25) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 still open, and if I could join the startup . 09 :47 :38 1 Who was Karen? 09 :50 :11 2 Q . And he made an offer to you? 09 :47:40 2 A. Karen Vahtra . 09 :50 :12 3 A. Well, not immediately . I had a round of 09 :47:44 3 Q. And you also met with Hamid? 09 :50 :19 4 interviews with him and Karen and Hamld and some other 09 :47:50 4 A. Hamid Savoj . 09 :50:22 5 people, and after that he made a written offer, 09 :47:56 5 Q. Do you recall anyone else that you met with? 09 :50:24 6 Q . Do you recall when he made the written offer? 09 :48:02 6 A. Hardy Leung. 09:50 :26 7 A. The written offer probably would be around 09 :48 :07 7 Q. I'm sorry, you need -- 09:50:29 8 the 1st of June. 09 :48:10 8 A. Hardy Leung . 09:50 :3 0 9 Q. And then you joined him shortly after he made 09 :48:12 9 Q. Did you meet with anyone else that you can 09 :50 :40 10 the offer to you? 09:48 :22 10 recall? 09 :50 :41 11 A. Yes. 09 :48:24 11 A. No. 09 :50 :42 12 Q. I think you testified earlier you came over 09 :48:24 12 Q . Now, with regard to those people as well as 09 :50 :42 13 in May? 09 :48 :27 13 anyone else, anyone else, ever at any point, before the 09 :50 :52 14 A. Oh, yeah . No, so I'm wrong . I'm sorry . It 09 :48 :28 14 litigation was filed, did you ever indicate to anyone, 09 :50 :57 15 must have been the ist of May that he made the written 09 :48 :32 15 directly or indirectly, that you intended to breach any 09 :51 :01 16 offer and I joined in the middle of May . 09 :48 :35 16 obligations to Synopsys? 09 :51 :04 17 Q . Now, with regard to Mr. Madhavam, did you at 09 :48:37 17 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:51 :06 18 any point, before this litigation was filed, ever 09:48 :51 18 compound . 09 :51 :08 19 indicate or suggest to Mr. Madhavam in any way that you 09 :48 :55 19 A. No, I did not . 09 :51 :08 20 intended to breach any obligation to Synopsys? - 09 :48 :58 20 Q. Did you, again at any point prior to this 09 :51 :09 21 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09 :49 :02 21 litigation, ever indicate or suggest to anyone that you 09 :51 :13 22 compound . 09 :49:04 22 intended to use confidential Synopsys information in 09 :51 :18 23 A. No, I did not . 09 :49 :06 . 23 connection with your work at Magma? 09 :51 :2 1 24 Q . Did you at any point before this litigation 09 :49:07 24 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:51 :23 25 was filed, Indicate or suggest directly or Indirectly to 09 :49 :11 25 compound. 09 :51 :24 26 28

1 Mr. Madhavam that you intended to use confiden tial 09 :49 :15 1 A. No, I did not. 09:51:2 5 . 2 Synopsys information in connection with your work at 09 :49 :18 2 Q . Did you at any point before this litigation 09 :51:26 L 3 Magma ? 09:49:22 3 was filed indicate or suggest, directly or indirectly, 09:51:30 4 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:49:23 4 to anyone that you intended to use proprieta ry Synopsys 09 :51:34 5 compound. 09:49:24 5 information in connection with your work at Magma? 09:51:39 6 A. No, I did not . 09:49:25 6 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:51:43 7 Q . Did you at any point indicate or suggest 09 :49 :26 7 compound. 09:51:44 8 directly or indirectly to Mr . Madhavam that you intended 09 :49:30 8 A. No, I did not. 09:51 :4 5 9 to use proprieta ry Synopsys information in connection 09 :49 :34 9 Q . Did you at any point before this litiga tion 09 :51 :45 10 with your work at Magma? 09:49:38 10 indicate or suggest, directly or indirectly, to anyone 09 :51:49 11 MR . EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:49:40 11 that you intended to use Synopsys inventions in 09 :51:54 12 compound. 09 :49:41 12 connection with your work at Magma? 09 :51 :5 7 13 A. No, I did not . 09 :49 :42 13 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:52:00 14 Q. Did you at any point indicate or suggest 09 :49:42 14 compound . 09:52:01 15 directly to Mr. Madhavam -- I'm sor ry, let me rephrase . 09 :49 :46 15 A . No, I did not. 09:52:0 2 16 Did you at any point indicate or suggest, 09:49:51 16 Q. Now, earlier in response to my question about 09 :52 :02 17 directly or indirectly, to Mr. Madhavam at any point 09:49 :54 17 the technical foundation for Magma 's products, we 09 :52 :12 18 that you intended to use Synopsys inventions in 09 :49:57 18 introduced the term "constant delay ." And I 'd like to 09 :52 :17 19 connection with your work? 09 :49:59 19 ask you if this is sort of an accurate description of 09 :52 :23 20 MR . EDELMAN : Objection , vague and ambiguous , 09:50:01 20 the constant delay model for logic synthesis . In 09 :52 :27 21 compound. 09:50:03 21 constant delay, as the cell's load changes, the cell 09 :52 :32 22 A. No, I did not. 09:50:03 22 size automa tically grows to hold delay constant? 09 :52 :3 7 23 Q . Would you repeat your answer? 09 :50:04 23 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 09 :52:40 24 A . No , I did not . 09:50:05 24 Calls for expert testimony . 09 :52 :42 25 Q. Thank you . Now , you said you met with Karen. 09:50:06 25 Q . Is that an accurate description ? 09:52 :43 27 29 tr' 8 (Pages 26 to 29) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 A. Yes, I would say so . 09 :52 :47 1 A. Yes, they are . 09 :57 :15 2 Q . Did you conceive of the idea of the constant 09 :52 :49 2 Q . If I could direct your attention back to your 09 :57:2 1 3 delay model for logic synthesis? 09 :52:56 3 declaration, which Is Exhibit i to the deposition . And 09 :57:31 4 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague, and ambiguous . 09 :52 :58 4 direct your attention to Exhibit -- paragraph 27 . In 09:57 :44 5 A . No, I did not. 09 :53 :01 5 paragraph 27, the paragraph reads, "At some point in 09 :57:5 6 6 Q. To your knowledge, who conceived of that 09 :53 :01 6 19971 decided to resign from Synopsys to pursue other 09 :58:02 7 Idea? 09 :53 :03 7 opportunities, Instead, however, of pursuing ideas at 09 :58 :06 B A. Well, it's an idea that's already in the 09 :53:04 8 another company that were unrelated to Synopsys . 09:58 :11 9 public domain. Its disclosed by Grodstein and Lehman 09:53 :07 9 confidential information, I was offered another position 09 :58:1 4 10 in a paper, two papers in the proceedings of ICCAD of 09 :53:15 10 where I could continue utilizing the inventions 1 09 :58:17 11 1995. One can say that the same idea is also disclosed 09 :53 :20 11 conceived at Synopsys." 09 :58 :2 1 12 In a paper by Sutherland and Sproull, which is published 09 :53 :26 12 Dr. van Ginneken, by this paragraph did you 09 :58 :27 13 earlier, I believe '89 or thereabouts, and a variety of 09 :53 :32 13 mean to imply that you were offered the position with 09 :58 :2 9 14 other papers that assume constant delay models, even if 09:53 :37 14 the expectation that you would continue to work on 09 :58 :33 15 they don't really justify why they use constant delay . 09 :53 :49 15 Inventions that you had conceived of at Synopsys? 09 :58 :37 16 Q. When you went to work at Synopsys, did you 09 :53 :55 16 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 09 :58 :4 0 17 understand that you were free to build on ideas that 09 :54 :01 17 as to whose expectations is being referred to . 09 :58 :42 18 were in the public domain such as the Grodstein, Lehman 09 :54 :04 18 A. Yeah . Whose expectations? 09 :58:45 19 and Sutherland publications? 09:54:07 19 Q. Magma's expectations . 09 :58:46 20 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 09:54 :09 20 A. No, not Magma's expectations . 09:58 :49 21 lack of foundation that those papers were in existence . 09 :54 :11 21 Q. So when you were offered the chance to work .09:58 :51 22 A. Yes, I did . 09:54 :14 22 at Magma you never represented In any form, whatsoever, 09 :58:54 23 MR. BULCHIS : Would you repeat your answer? 09 :54 :19 23 that you would continue to work on inventions you had 09 :59:00 24 A. Yes, I did . 09:54 :21 24 conceived at Synopsys, correct? 09:59 :0 2 25 MR . RILEY : In response to counsel's concerns 09 :54 :42 25 A. That's correct, 09:59 :05 30 32

1 that the papers weren't in existence I'd like to have 09 :54 :43 1 Q . If I could direct your attention to paragraph 09 :59 :05 2 them .marked, The first is the paper by Sutherland . 09 :54:47 2 29, please . In paragraph 29 It reads, "I have reason to 09 :59:10 3 We'll have this marked as Exhibit No . 2. 09 :54 :51 3 believe that, at a minimum, my supervisor at Magma new 09 :59 :18 4 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 2.) 09 :55 :06 4 that the fixed timing inventions Magma was Intending to 09 :59:24 5 Q . So I've handed you what's marked as Exhibit 09 :55 :09 5 use were conceived by myself at Synopsys and were 09 :59:28 6 2, a paper entitled "Logical Effort : Designing for 09:55 :15 6 encompassed by my agreement with Synopsys ." Do you see 09 :59 :32 7 Speed on the Back of an Envelope." It is by Ivan 09 :55 :20 7 that? 09 :59:3 5 8 Sutherland and Robert Sproull . It is from the advanced 09 :55:25 8 A. Yes, I do. 09:59 :36 9 research in VLSI 1991, UC Santa Cruz . 09:55 :29 9 Q . Was that in the draft prepared by Synopsys's 09 :59 :37 10 MR . RILEY : Let's have this marked as Exhibit 09 :55:45 10 attorneys? 09 :59:4 1 11 3. It is an article entitled "Logic Decomposition 09 :55:47 11 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, calls for 09 :59 :42 12 During Technology Mapping" by Lehman, et al ., 1995 IEEE 09 :55 :51 12 speculation . 09:59 :44 13 paper. 09:55 :56 13 A. It was in the draft when I first saw it. 09:59 :45 14 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 3.) 09:56:08 14 Q. Was there ever a person identified as your 09 :59:48 15 MR. RILEY : And marked as Exhibit No . 4, a 09:56 :14 15 supervisor? 09:59:52 16 1995 paper entitled "A Delay Model for Logic Synthesis 09:56 :22 16 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 09 :59:5 3 17 of Continuously-Sized Networks," by Grodstein, et al ., 09 :56 :26 17 Identified by whom? 09:59 :54 18 from 1995 IEEE publication . 09:56 :30 18 A. I believe this paragraph refers to be Hutt. 09 :59:57 19 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 4 .) 09 :56 :49 19 Q. Did you ever explain to Synopsys's attorneys, 10:00 :02 20 Q. In your earlier answer you referred to 09 :56 :53 20 directly or indirectly, that this referred to Joe Hutt? 10 :00:05 21 materials that were in the public domain that related to 09 :56 :58 21 A. Yes . 10 :00 :0 9 22 the conception of constant delay, and I believe you 09 :57 :02 22 Q . Do you know why they didn't include the 10 :00 :10 23 referred to papers by Grodstein, Lehman and Sutherland. 09 :57 :06 23 identification of Joe Hutt? 10 :00 :14 24 Are these papers, Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, the papers to 09 :57 :09 24 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 10:00 :16 25 which you were referring? 09 :57 :13 25 as to timing? 10 :00 :16 31 33

9 (Pages 30 to 33) E4STWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-4Bbd-9067-b9348616b443 1 A. I believe they would like to keep it 10 :00 :17 1 to know what you had done at Synopsys? 10 :03:55 2 ambiguous, 10:00:24 2 A. Yes. 10:03 :5 7 3 Q. Was it your understanding that they wanted to 10 :00 ;25 3 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, mischaracterizes the 10 :03 :58 4 keep it ambiguous so it could be read to apply to Rajeev 10 :00 :26 4 testimony . 10 :03 :59 5 Madhavam? 10 :00 :30 5 Q . You have no knowledge that he actually did 10 :04 :00 6 A . That's my understanding now . 10 :00 :33 6 know that you worked on constant delay at Synopsys, 10 :04:01 7 Q. Well, let me ask you about Joe Hutt . Who was 10:00 :35 7 right? 10 :04 :04 B Joe Hutt? 10 :00 :39 8 A. That's right. 10:04 :0 5 9 A. Joe Hutt was my supervisor at Magma starting 10 :00 :40 9 Q. So the most that you can say is that Mr. 10:04 :05 10 sometime in '98 . Joe Hutt was before that at Synopsys, 10:00 :44 10 Hutt, because he joined Synopsys after you left, was 10 :04 :09 11 and before that he was at IBM . He spent a considerable 10 :00 :55 11 that he was in a position that he might have been able 10 :04 :14 12 career at IBM, I believe, something like 30 years at 10 :01 :01 12 to acquire the knowledge of what you did in constant 10 :04 :16 13 IBM, where he was highly positioned in the EDA 10 :01 :06 13 delay at 5ynopsys, correct? 10 :04 :1 9 14 organization . He's worked for a long time on EDA tools . 10:01 :13 14 A . Yes . 10:04 :2 1 15 He join Synopsys, I believe, shortly after I left 10 :01 :18 15 Q. There's nothing else besides that, right? 10 :04:2 1 16 Synopsys and he left Synopsys to join Magma in spring of 10 :01 :21 16 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10:04 :25 17 '98. 10:01 :28 17 A. Right. 10 :04 :27 18 Q . So Mr . Hutt, to whom this -- and that's the 10 :01 :35 18 Q. Mr. Hutt has never said to you, in words or . 10:04 :27 19 only person whom this paragraph would refer to in your 10 :01 :38 19 substance, Dr. van Ginneken, I know you were working on 10 :04 :30 20 mind? 10 :01 :42 - 20 constant delay at Synopsys? 10 :04 :34 21 A. Yes. 10:01 :42 21 A. I don't recall him saying that, 10 :04 :36 22 . Q . He's the only supervisor that you're 10:01 :43 22 Q. So you really are only speculating about his 10 :04 :38 23 referring to is Joe Hutt, right? 10 :01 :44 - 23 knowledge of what you did at Syrtopsys, right? 10 :04 :40 24 A. Yes. 10:01 :46 24 MR, EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 10 :04:4 3 25 Q . And Joe Hutt joined Magma after -- I'm sorry 10 :01 :46 2 5 A . Yes . Its not direct knowledge . 10 :04 :44 34 36

1 -- Joe Hutt joined Synopsys after you left Synopsys 10 :01 :55 1 Q. Sorry, you said you had no direct knowledge 10 :04 :48 2 sometime in May of 1997; Is that right? 10 :01 :58 2 of what he knew? 10 :04 :5 2 3 A . After I left Synopsys In May, yes . I don't 10 :02:02 3 A. Right . 10:04 :53 4 know If Joe Hutt joined In May . 10 :02 :06 4 Q . And again, before we leave that paragraph 29, 10 :04 :53 5 Q. So Mr. Hutt never worked with you in any 10 :02 :08 5 other than Joe Hutt, do you claim that anyone else at 10:05 :44 6 capacity at Synopsys, correct? 10 :02 :16 6 Magma had any basis to know, at any time before the 10:05 :47 7 A. That's correct . 10:02 :21 7 litigation was filed, that Magma's fixed timing 10 :05 :51 8 Q . While Mr. Hutt was at IBM, did he work on the 10:02 :21 8 technology was allegedly conceived by you at Synopsys? 10 :05 :54 9 NGSS joint project between IBM and Synopsys? 10 :02 :25 9 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10:05:58 10 A. Not to my knowledge . 10 :02 ;32 10 A. No. 10:06 :00 11 Q. So do you have any basis to say that Mr . Autt 10 :02 :33 11 MR . RILEY : I marked as the next exhibit U,S110 :06:00 12 knew what you were doing when you were working at 10 :02 :39 12 patent 6,453,446, entitled "Timing Closure Methodology ." 10 :06 :23 13 Synopsys? 10 :02 :43 13 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 5 .) 10 :06:50 14 A. I believe that Mr. Hutt may have known due to 10 :02 :45 14 Q. Exhibit 5, U .S . patent 6,453,446, we will 10 :06 :51 15 a number of circumstances . First of all, he worked at - 10 :02 :54 15 refer to as the '446 patent . And Dr . van Ginneken, 10 :07:04 16 Synopsys in a place In the organization which I believe 10:02 :57 16 you're listed as the inventor on this patent . Are you 10:07 :08 17 was closely related to NGSS and the work of constant 10 :03 :01 17 familiar with this patent, the specifications and the 10 :07 :12 18 delay In NGSS. He may have had an opportunity there to 10 :03 :06 18 claims? 10 :07:1 6 19 learn about the constant delay work In NGSS . I also -- 10:03 :10 19 A. Somewhat. 10:07 :17 20 Mr. Hutt visited Magma sometime earlier in '98 as a 10 :03 :15 20 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the 10:07:18 21 representative of Synopsys . At that time he was told 10 :03 :20 21 discussion in column 15, line 65 . This is a discussion 10 :07 :22 22 about constant delay work at Magma by myself and others . 10:03 :27 22 that's related to cell placement, which I believe, as we 10 :07 :45 23 Q. But In terms of what he knew about your 10 :03:41 23 discussed earlier, is the process by which a physical 10 :07:53 24 constant delay work at Synopsys, your only basis for the 10 :03 :45 24 location for a cell is determined on a two-dimensional 10 :07 :57 25 statement in paragraph 29 is that he had an opportunity 10 :03:51 25 structure; is that correct? 10:08 :02 35 37

10 (Pages 34 to 37) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 I f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 A. Yes . 10 :08:04 1 structu re s to do placement . I'm not aware of anybody 10 :11:29 2 Q. There is a discussion in here about the 10 : 08 :04 2 using those structures in combination with constant 10 :11 :37 3 buckets, and It relates to the first several paragraphs , 10 :08:09 3 delay . 10:11:40 4 and then there is a reference to figure 4 of the patent . 10 :08: 15 4 Q. Good point . I'll rephrase the question . To 10 :11 :41 5 If you could take a quick look at figure 4. I'm sor ry, 10:08 :21 5 your knowledge , did a one before you came to Magma 10 :11 :44 6 wrong figure . Figure 10. Within th e context of the 10 :08:41 6 conceive of the idea of .11 :48 7 '446 patent, what is the meaning of bucket? 10 :08:56 7 el? 10 :11 :5 3 8 MR. EDELMAN : Objection . Calls for expe rt 10 :09:01 8 MR. EDELMAN : Same objections . Vague and 10 :11 :5 4 9 testimony. Requires claim construction. Vague and 10 :09:03 9 ambiguous. Calls for claim construction on the term 10 : 11:56 10 ambiguous. 10 :09:08 10 "bucket." 10 :12 :00 11 A . A bucket is an element In a two-dimensional 10 :09:08 11 No. 10 :12:00 12 grid which contains certain area. Buckets are organized 10 :09:13 12 Q. d direct your attention to claim 12 , 10 :12:0 0 13 in rows and columns and usually square , Each bucket can 10 :09:22 13 please, Dr. van Ginneken . I'm sorry, I misread my 10:12 :3 7 14 hold a number of cells. 10 :09:27 14 notes. It's 17, not 12 . Claim 17 says , "Th e automated 10:12 :53 15 Q. What is the purpose , wi th in the context of 10 :09:30 15 meth od of claim 1 wherein a group of said some cells are 10 :13 :02 16 the inventions claimed in th e '446 patent, of using 10 :09:32 16 assigned in buckets and operated upon ." Did you 10 : 13 :0 9 17 buckets? 10 :09:37 17 conceive of the invention -- were you the sole inventor 10 :13:1 7 18 MR. EDELMAN : Same objections . 10 :09:38 18 of the invention defined in claim 17? 10 :13 :23 19 A. The purpose is to provide an approximate 10 :09:39 19 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for claim 10 :13:27 20 placement which still allows minor modifications to the 10 :09:43 -20 construction . Vague and ambiguous . 10:13:29 21 net list, as well as minor modifications to the 10:09:49 21 -A. No . 10 :13 :32 22 placement, while still preserving the overall global 10 :09: 52 22 Q . The other individuals that you mentioned 10 :13:32 23 placement. 10 :09:57 23 contributed to the conception of claim 17; Is that 10 :13 :36 24 Q. And what information, if any, Is de rived from 10 :09:57 24 correct? 10 :13 :41 25 the placement of the cells into the buckets which is 10 :10:02 25 MR. EDELMAN : Same objec tions. 10 :13:4 1 38 40

1 useful to your invention ? 10 :10 : 06 1 A.. Yes . 10 :13 :42 2 A . The Information that's derived is the wire 10 :10 :08 2 Q . Now, if you could , please , look at the patent 10 :13:42 3 lengths, and from the wire length can be derived 10 :10: 11 3 specification column 16. Line 51, routing of the 10: 13:52 4 capacitive load of the wires . 10 :10: 16 4 digital circuit, and there is a discussion of rou ting . 10 :14:1 1 5 Q. Where does the concept of using buckets wi th 10 : 10 :21 5 Did you conceive solely the concept of using routing as 10 :14:27 6 the constant delay synthesis come from? 10 :10:24 6 described in this pa rt of the specification in a 10 :14:33 7 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10 :10:29 7 constant delay model? 10:14:38 8 Calls for claim construction . Compound . 10 :10:30 8 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 10:14:40 9 A . The concept of buckets was something th at 10:10 :33 9 Calls for claim construction . Lack of foundation . 10:14:4 1 10 arose In discussions as Magma, 10 :10 :42 10 A. I don't th ink so. 10 :14:4 5 11 Q. And who were those discussions with? 10: 10 :45 11 Q. Who did? 10:14:46 12 A . Those were with a group of people inducting 10 :10:47 12 MR. EDELMAN : Same objections. 10:14:48 13 Karen Vahtra, Hardy Leung, Patrick Groeneveld , Hong 10:10 :52 13 A. Well, I'm not really sure, but probably 10 :14:50 14 Cha€, Hamid Sojov. 10 :10: 55 14 involved physical design people at Magma , which include 10:14:59 15 Q. ou contelve o s idea of using 10:11:01 15 people like Patrick Groeneveld , Hong Chai, or Hardy 10 :15:05 16 buckets__ 10:11 :03 16 Leung . These are people on the routing team. 10:15:10 17 MR . EDELMAN : Same objections. 10:11:04 17 Q. Like to direct your atten ti on to the column 6 10 :15:27 18 A . No. n ributed by 10 :11:05 18 of the '446 patent, beginning at line 26, where there is 10 :16:12 19 somebody else . 10: 11 :08 19 a discussion of libra ry analysis . What did you mean by 10:16:2 0 20 -177-AM-this conception of buckets that was 10 :11:11 20 libra ry analysis? 10 :16:26 21 contri buted by others at Magma , was this ever conceived, 10:11:13 21 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, lack of founda ti on . 10:16:30 22 to your knowledge , before you joined Magma ? 10:11 :18 22 Vague and ambiguous. Calls for claim constru[t€on. 10 :16:31 23 MR . EDELMAN : Same objections. 10:11:22 23 A . Library analysis is a process whereby any 10 :16:36 24 A. There were a lot of placement algorithms in 10 :11:23 24 existing standard cell libra ry, discrete libra ry, is 10:16:43 25 the known literature which use similar sort of 10 : 11 :26 25 analyzed to determine initial constant delays that are 10:16:47 39 41

11 (Pages 38 to 41) EASTWOOD- STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 going to be assigned to these cells as a starting point 10 :16:53 1 constrained on this chain of gates is, that the optimum 10 :20 :30 2 for the delay, which is then used in logic synthesis, 10 :17 :01 2 will always have the same delays for all the gates. 10 :20 :34 3 logic optimization and restructuring of the network, 10 :17 :04 3 So in this sense they kind of show that 10 :20 :42 4 Q . And this delay which is assigned is sometimes 10 :17 :09 4 fairly general optimization criteria leads to an optimum 10 :20 :46 5 referred to as the initial delay? 10:17 :15 5 which always has the same delay for certain gates . 10 :20:5 3 6 A . Yes. Intended delay. 10:17 :18 6 Q . You refer to the continuous buffering 10:21 :02 7 Q. I'm sorry, initial intended delay ; is that 10 :17 :22 7 assumption which is used to select the initial intended 10 :21 :05 8 correct? 10:17 :25 8 delay. What is that? 10 :21 :07 9 A. Yes. 10:17 :25 9 MR. EDELMAN. Objection, vague and ambiguous. 10 :21 :10 10 Q . And in your invention the method that is 10 :17 :25 10 A. It was the second part of the -- 10 :21 :1 1 11 disclosed for assigning the initial intended delay is 10 :17 :31 11 MR . EDELMAN : Calls for claim construction . 10 :21 :13 12 based on the use of gain; is that correct? 10 :17 :36 12 Go ahead . 10 :21 :1 4 13 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10 :17 :39 13 A. That was the second part of the argument 10 :21 :15 14 Calls for claim construction . 10:17 :41 14 where Sutherland assumes that buffers can be added to a 10 :21 :17 15 A. Yes. 10:17 :44 15 chain, and he shows that when the timing constraints or 10 :21 :21 16 Q . And gain is the electrical effort sometimes 10 :17 :45 16 the gain constraints change the right answer Is -- the 10 :21 :26 17 -- it is referred to as electrical effort measured as 10 :17 :53 17 optimal answer is to vary the number of buffers to meet 10:21 :32 18 the ratio of the output load to the input load; is that 10:17 :56 18 those constraints rather than to change the delays of 10 :21 :36 19 correct? 10:18 :00 19 the gates. 10 :21 :4 1 20 MR . EDELMAN., Same objections. 10 :18 :00 20 Q. So in your constant delay invention you 10 :21 :42 21 A . Yes, that's correct . 10:18 :01 21 assign as the initial intended delay the delay of a gate 10 :21 :45 22 Q . Now, in your d. ;cussion of the initial . 10 :18:02 22 that would be improved only by the addition of the 10 :21 :51 23 intended delay, you refer to the work of Sutherland and 10 :18 :08 23 buffer rather than changing the delay of the gate if you 10 :21:56 24 Sproull, which is in Exhibit 2 ; is that correct? _ 10:18 :12 24 wanted to improve the gain? 10 :22 :0 0 25 A . Yes. 10 :18 :18 25 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 10 :22 :01 42 44

I Q . Within the context of the '446, how is gain 10:18 :18 1 and incomplete hypothetical . 10:22 :03 2 related to the determination of initial intended delay? 10 :18:29 2 A. Yes. Under the optimization criteria as set 10:22 :0 4 3 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation . 10 :18 :33 3 by Sutherland . 10 :22 :10 4 Calls for claim construction. 10 :18 :35 4 Q. Can we refer to that concept of selecting the 10:22 :13 5 A. Well, that's a complex question . Requires a 10 :18 :37 5 initial intended delay using this methodology that 10 :22 :16 6 complex answer. Sutherland/Sproull present two, 10 :18 :40 6 you've outlined as gain-based synthesis? 10:22 :19 7 essentially, analyses based on gain which they -- which 10 :18 :47 7 A. Yes. 10 :22 :24 8 leads them to propose this constant delay model . The 10 :18 :56 8 Q. Are you the sole inventor of that idea? 10 :22:24 9 first analysis basically says that the stage effort or 10 :19 :01 9 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 10 :22 :33 10 the stage delay, at least a variable portion of the 10 :19 :10 10 in the context . Calls for claim construction . 10:22 :3 4 11 staged delay, should be equal for an optimally sized 10 :19 :16 11 A. Well, the idea of gain-based analysis was 10 :22 :46 12 chain of gates. They show that this can be done for any 10 :19 :21 12 first introduced by Sutherland and Sproull, and I first 10:22 :49 13 chain of CMOS gates . It doesn't matter what the 10 :19 :27 13 learned about the idea of Sutherland and Sproull from 10:22 :55 14 function of the gate Is . And they show that either in 10:19 :32 14 IBM. 10:23 :00 15 the formulation of a fixed timing where you optimize the 10 :19 :37 15 Q . And who at IBM saw the connection between the 10 :23 :03 16 gain, or in a situation where the gain is fixed and the 10:19:42 16 work that you were doing and the work of Sutherland and 10 :23:09 17 timing is optimized, that the best optimal result is one 10 :19 :45 17 Sproul]? 10 :23 :12 18 where the variable portion of the delay of each gate is 10 :19 :50 18 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10 :23 :13 19 equal. So that's kind of the argument that the delays 10:19 :55 19 Calls for claim construction . 10:23 :1 5 20 in a chain of gates should be equal . 10 :20 :03 20 A. Prabhakar Kudva . 10:23 :17 21 Then they go on with the second analysis 10 :20 :10 21 MR. EDELMAN : Can you spell it? 10 :23:22 22 where they assume that additional buffers can be added 10:20 :13 22 THE WITNESS: Well, there's an H in there 10:23:23 23 into this chain, and when they analyze how many buffers 10 :20:16 23 somewhere but I'm not sure where . 10:23 :26 24 are to be included in this chain they show that, 10 :20 :20 24 Q. If I could direct your attention to claim 49 10:23 :29 25 regardless of what the timing constrained or the gain 10 :20 :25 25 of the '446 patent. Claim 49 reads, "An automated 10:23 :36 43 45

12 (Pages 42 to 45) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 method of modeling the delay of the cells of an 10 :24 :08 1 analysis, presents an analysis of a chain of buffers, an 10 :27:36 2 integrated circuit comprising the steps of: associating 10 :24 :10 2 analysis similar to Sutherland and Sproull, but not 10 :27 :45 3 an initial gain value with each cell that has been 10 :24 :14 3 generalized to include any type of logic . It's 10 :27 :48 4 initially selected for inclusion in the integrated 10 :24.18 4 restricted in their book to a chain of inverters . Using 10 :27 :5 2 5 circuit; computing the initial intended delay value of 10 :24 :21 5 a similar analysis they come up with an initial intended 10 :27 :58 6 each cell based on the initial intended gain value ." 10 :24 :30 6 delay for the inverter. 10 :28 :02 7 Did Kudva from IBM contribute to the 10 :24 :38 7 Q. But at the time that you were working in 10 :28 :05 8 realization that initial intended delay values for each 10 :24 :42 8 March of 1996, at that moment that Mr . Kudva gave you 10:28:07 9 cell could be based on the initial intended gain value? 10 :24 :45 9 this connection between the work of Sutherland and 10 :28 :14 10 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10:24 :49 10 Sproull, had you at that point considered using initial 10 :28 :1 7 11 Calls for speculation . Calls for claim construction . 10:24:51 11 -- using gain to determine initial intended delay? 10 :28 :2 0 12 A. Prabhakar Kudva saw at least the relationship 10 :24 :56 12 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10 :28 :25 13 between the constant delay model and the work of 10:25 :01 13 A. Yes. I considered it for at least a buffer. 10 :28:26 14 Sutherland and Sproull . He made that connection, and he 10:25 :09 14 It wasn't clear to me how to generalize it to other 10 :28 :29 15 sent me a paper to alert me to that connection . 10 :25 :14 15 gains. 10:28 :33 16 Q . And did you discuss that connection with 10 :25 :22 16 Q. So with Mr . Kudva's contribution you saw that 10:28 :33 17 Kudva? 10 :25 :25 17 you could generalize it to other gates? 10 :28:37 18 A . Yes. We had extensive discussions about 10 :25 :26 18 A. Yes. 10 :28 :3 9 19 that . 10 :25 :28 19 MR . EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous, 10 :28 :39 20 Q. So with those facts, do you consider that he 10 :25 :28 20 calls for... 10 :28:4 2 21 contributed to your conception of the invention 10 :25 :32 21 Q . I'm sorry,-could you please respond again? 10 :28 :43 22 disclosed In claim 49? 10 :25 :35 22 A. Yes. 10 :28 :45 23 MR . EDELMAN : Objection. Calls for a legal 10 :25 :38 23 Q. Dr . van Glnneken, if I can refer you to your 10 :30 :15 24 conclusion . Calls for expert testimony . Calls for 10 :25 :40 24 declaration again, please . And we can do this with 10 :30 :17 25 claim construction. 10 :25 :42 25 another exhibit . 10:30 :24 46 48

1 A . Yeah. He contributed by introducing the 10 : 25 :44 1 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 6.) 10:30 :41 2 concept of logical effo rt and electrical efforts-within 10 :25:47 2 Q. . Exhibit 6 is also a public document . Its a 10:30 :42 3 the context of the research in the NGSS project . 10:25:52 3 Rule 63, Declaration and Power of Attorney for Patent 10 :31 :09 4 Q. So you are not the sole inventor of the 10 :26:00 4 Application in the United States Patent and Trademark 10 :31 :13 5 invention defined in claim 49; is that correct? 10:26:24 5 Office, and it has your signature there, Dr . van 10:31 :16 6 MR . EDELMAN : Objection . Calls for legal 10:26:27 6 Ginneken, and the date of May 4, 1998, correct? 10:31 :23 7 conclusion . Calls for claim construction . Calls for 10:26:28 7 A. Yes. 10 :31 :27 8 expert testimony . 10 :26:32 8 Q. This is the inventor's declaration . related to 10:31 :27 9 A . I'm not familiar with the standards of 10 :26:32 9 the application that gave rise to the '446 patent, and 10 :31 :35 10 inventorship. 10 :26:35 10 in the first paragraph you say, "As a below named 10 :31 :39 11 Q . So if you have no view, just tell me you have 10 :26:37 11 inventor, I hereby declare that my residence, post 10:31 :43 12 no view on that. 10 :26:39 12 office address and citizenship are as stated below next 10 :31 :46 13 A . I don't have a view on that. 10 :26:40 13 to my name, and I believe I am the original, first and 10 :31 :50 14 Q . Do you recall when Kudva contributed this 10 :26:43 14 sole inventor (if only one name . is listed below) ." And 10 :31 :56 15 connection between the concepts of logical effo rt and 10:26:52 15 only one name is listed below, correct? 10:32 :0 1 16 initial intended delay? 10:26:56 16 A. Correct. 10 :32 :03 17 MR. EDELMAN : Objection . Mischaracterizes 10 :27:00 17 Q. Given the contributions to the inventions 10 :32 :03 18 testimony . Vague and ambiguous. 10:27:01 18 conceived and described in the '446 patent by Kudva and 10:32 :08 19 A. That would be in March of '96 . 10 :27:04 19 Patrick Groeneveld, Hamid and others, why did you sign 10 :32 :14 20 Q. And before Mr. Kudva contributed that to you, 10 :27:09 20 this Indicating that you were the original, first and 10 :32 :19 21 had you considered using a gain -based method for 10:27 :18 21 sole inventor? 10 :32 :21 22 assigning ini tial Intended delay? 10 :27:25 22 MR. EDELMAN : Objection . Assumes facts not 10 :32 :23 23 MR . EDELMAN: Objec tion , vague and ambiguous . 10 :27:30 23 in evidence, tack of foundation, calls for claim 10 :32 :27 24 A . I was familiar with the work in Mead and 10 :27:31 24 construction. 10 :32:3 0 25 Conway . Mead and Conway contains a -- comprises an 10 :27:34 25 A. I believe I was the sole inventor . I may not 10 :32 :30 47 49

13 (Pages 46 to 49) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 fefbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 I have been sufficiently Informed of what the standards 10 :32 :33 1 A. To the extent they're not patented, yes. 10 :50:29 2 for €nventorshlp were. 10 :32 :36 2 Q. To the extent that it's a publication that's 10 :50 :32 3 Q . Did you review the claims before you signed 10 :32 :39 3 not patented or presentation that's in the public 10 :50 :34 4 this oath? 10:32 :44 4 domain, was it your understanding when you worked at 10 :50 :36 5 A . No, I did not. 10:32 :46 5 Synopsys that you could indeed use that material? 10:50 :40 6 Q. Is there any other reason why you did not 10 :32 :47 6 A. Yes. 10:50:43 7 name or disclose Kudva, Groeneveld, Hamid or the others 10 :32:52 7 MR. EDELMAN: Same objections . 10:50:44 8 as Inventors? 10 :32 :59 8 Q . And when you were working at Synopsys did you 10 :50 :44 9 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for legal 10 :33 :01 9 use, for the benefit of Synopsys, the knowledge, 10 :50:47 10 conclusion. Vague and ambiguous . Lack of foundation . 10:33 :04 10 information, skill and ability that you had acquired 10 :50 :52 11 A. I don't think so. 10 :33 :05 11 through your work at IBM? 10 :50 :54 12 Q. So the entire reason you did not disclose 10 :33 :05 12 A. Yes. 10 :50 :57 13 Kudva, Hamid or others as inventors was because you were 10 :33 :08 13 Q. . When you came to work at Magma, did you 10 :50 :57 14 unfamiliar with the legal requirements for €nventorship 10 :33 :14 14 understand that you could use materials that were in the 10 :51 :03 15 and you had not read the claims ; is that correct? 10:33 :18 15 public domain such as publications and presentations? 10:51 :05 16 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, mischaracterizes the 10 :33 :22 16 A . Yes. 10 :51 :09 17 testimony . 10:33 :23 17 Q. You understood that you could use your own 10 :51 :10 18 A. That's correct. 10:33 :23 18 publications and presentations in the public domain? 10:51 :12 19 MR. EDELMAN : Same objections as before . 10 :33 :23 19 A . Yes. 10 :51 :15 20 MR. RILEY : We've been going for a little 10 :33 :26 20 MR. EDELNAN : Objection, calls for a legal 10 :51 :15 21 over an hour . Why don't we take a restroom break. 10:33 :27 21 conclusion . 10:51 :16 22 Thank you . 10 :33 :30 22 Q. I'm sorry? 10 :51 :17 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 10 :33 :331 23 A. Yes. 10 :51 :1 9 24 time now Is approximately 10 :33 a .m . 10 :33 :32 24 Q. What is van Ginneken's algorithm? 10:51 :19 25 (Recess .) 10 :48:48 2 5 A. Well, that's not a name I gave it, but... 10:51 :22 50 52

I THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 10 :49 :13 1 Q. May I call It that? 10 :51 :2 5 2 The time now is approximately 10 :48 a .m . 10:49:16 2 A. Yeah. its an algorithm that does buffering 10 :51 :27 3 Q. Dr. van Ginneken, earlier this morning when 10 :49 :19 3 on long wire trees, and it uses a delay model based on 10 :51 :33 4 you were discussing the Sutherland, Grodstein and Lehman 10 :49 :22 4 Elmore delay, and within that delay model It uses a 10 :51 :44 5 papers that was in connection with some questions about 10 :49:24 5 dynamic programming approach, and with some assumptions 10 :51 :49 6 material that's In the public domain, what do you 10 :49 :27 6 it finds the optimal solution for inserting buffers in a 10 :51 :5 4 7 consider the public domain? 10 :49 :29 7 wire tree . 10:52 :0 0 8 A . Well, I don't know exactly how that's 10 :49 :33 8 MR. RILEY: I'd like to have this marked as 10:52 :10 9 defined, but It certainly Includes publications like 10 :49 :38 9 the next exhibit which Is a 1990 IEEE publication 10 :52:11 10 papers, books, proceedings, journals . 10:49 :43 10 entitled "Buffer Placement In Distributed RC-tree 10 :52 :16 11 Q . What about public presentations? 10 :49 :50 11 Networks for Minimal Elmore Delay." 10 :52 :2 0 12 A. Presentations, yeah, if made in public . 10 :49:52 12 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 7 .) 10:52:37 13 Q . And you have published a number of different 10 :49 :55 13 Q. So Dr. van Ginneken, Is this the first 10 :53:09 14 papers in the field of computer-assisted design, haven't 10 :49 :59 14 publication where you publicly disclosed what became 10 :53:13 15 you? 10 :50 :04 15 known as the van Ginneken algorithm? 10 :53:18 16 A. Computer-aided . 10:50 :04 16 A. Yes, It Is. 10:53 :2 2 17 Q . Computer-aided . I always used assisted . 10 :50 :07 17 Q . Have you used the material that's disclosed 10 :53 :22 18 Computer-aided design? 10 :50 :10 18 In this In connection with your employment after you 10 :53 :28 19 A. Yes . 10:50 :12 19 left IBM? 10 :53:30 20 Q. And you consider those materials to be in the 10:50 :12 20 A . I have not myself implemented this, but we - 10 :53 :33 21 public domain? 10:50 :15 21 used some of these Ideas, I believe at Magma, to write a 10 :53 :38 22 A. Yes . 10:50:16 22 buffering algorithm . The algorithm in Magma does not do 10 :53 :43 23 Q. And when you came to work at Synopsys, did 10 :50 :16 23 exactly what's described In the paper, but certainly the 10 :53:49 24 you understand that you were free to use the ideas that 10 :50 :19 24 ideas in the paper, you know, influenced design of the 10 :53 :53 25 you had previously published while you were at IBM? 10 :50 :23 2 5 algorithm . 10 :53 :58 51 53

14 (Pages 50 to 53) EA5TWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Q. Now, in the '446 patent, as I understand it, 10 :53 :58 1 write the description that appears on pages 2097 and 10 :57 :3 2 2 the delay of the controls Is held constant, and the area 10 :54 :04 2 2098 of Exhibit 8? 10 :57 :37 3 of the cells Is ultimately determined by the load placed 10 :54:08 3 A. Yes, I did . 10:57 ;41 4 on the cell ; is that correct? 10 :54 :11 4 Q. And the quote I was referring to is in the 10 :57 :4 1 5 A. Yes. 10:54:12 5 second full paragraph that says, "With constant gate 10 :57:50 6 Q. Isn't that Idea encompassed in the 10 :54:13 6 delay, the size of a gate varies as a function of its 10:57:55 7 description, the public description, of your 1996 paper 10 :54:18 7 load," which is the basic idea behind the '446 patent, 10 :57:58 8 for the 1996 ICCAD conference? 10 :54 :22 8 correct? 10:58:02 9 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 10 :54:25 9 A . Yeah . That's the constant delay idea. 10:58 :0 3 10 Calls for claim construction . 10 :54:26 10 Q. And so given that this information was 10 :58 :06 11 A. It's described In the paper that was 10 :54 :27 11 public, another company would be entitled to use that 10 :58 :1 2 12 submitted to the ICCAD, yes . 10:54 :30 12 information to build a logic synthesis system? 10 :58 :1 5 13 Q. Isn't it also described in the public 10 :54:33 13 MR. EDELMAN : Objection. Calls for a legal 10 :58:18 14 announcement of that paper? 10:54:35 14 conclusion. Calls for speculation. Incomplete 10 :58:20 15 MR . EDELMAN : . Objection, vague and ambiguous, 10 :54 :36 15 hypothetical, 10 :58 :2 2 16 lack of foundation . 10 :54:38 16 A': Yes. 10:58 :24 17 A. I don't remember, yeah . I think it is . 10 :54 :40 17 Q . And then you state in this tutorial, "You 10 :58 :2 4 18 Q. Let me give you a copy of that, apologize for 10 :54 :42 18 will learn to drive on the left-hand side of the road . 10:58 :30 19 not showing it to you . 10 :54 :47 19 We extend Sutherland and Sproull's theory of 'logical 10 :58 :3 4 20 MR . RILEY: Exhibit 8 is the description of 10 :55 :00 20 effort' and apply it to logic synthesis ." And I believe 10 :58 :3 7 21 the technical program, the advanced description for 10 :55 :12 21 we discussed earlier that was Kudva's contribution, 10 :58:40 22 ICCAD 1996 . The conference was to be held on November 10:55 :17 22 correct? 10 :58:4 3 23 10 through 14, 1996 In San lose . 10:55 :21 23 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, mischaracterizes the 10 :58 :4 5 24 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 8 .) 10 :55 :53 24 testimony . 10 :58 :46 25 Q. If you turn to Bates stamped page 2097. And 10 .55 :53 25 A. He provided that paper . He introduced that . 10 :58 :47 54 56 4

1 this document was made public, correct, Dr . van 10 :56 :15 1 Q. He introduced that idea to you, correct? 10 :58 :50 2 Ginneken? 10 :56 :17 2 MR . EDELMAN. Objection, mischaracterizes the 10:58 :5 2 3 A. Yeah . It appeared in the advance program . 10 :56 :19 3 testimony. 10 :58:54 4 It was sent out to potential conference attendees. 1 10 :56:21 4 A. Yes. 10:58 :55 5 assume a few thousand copies would be made. 10:56 :29 5 Q . "In this context we review the mapping 10:58 :5 5 6 Q . Could you explain to the court what ICCAD is? 10 :56:32 6 algorithm of Eric Lehman, et al ., and Grodstein's delay 10 :58 :5 7 7 A. ICCAD stands for international Conference for 10 :56 :35 7 model for continuously sized networks," and that's a 10 :59 :00 8 Computer-Aided Design, and there's some subtitle I 10 :56:40 8 reference to the two papers which we previously 10:59:03 9 forget . 10 :56 :48 9 identified? 10:59 :06 10 Q. And this was a conference that's held on an 10 :56:50 10 A. Yes. 10:59 :08 11 annual basis in San Jose; is that correct? 10 :56:52 11 Q. 'We also look at new algorithms for logic 10 :59 :08 12 A. Yes. 10 :56 :55 12 synthesis of continuously sized networks. The change in 10:59:1 4 13 Q. And the members of ICCAD, or the people who 10 :56:56 13 paradigm opens a new frontier of CAD research in which 10:59 :20 14 attend that, represent many of the large EDA companies 10 :56 :59 14 we can expect many new contributions ." 10 :59:23 15 In the Industry? 10:57 :04 15 Now, Dr. van Ginneken, did you receive 10 :59:2 6 16 A. Yeah. It's the premier conference for, you 10 :57:06 16 permission or approval to make this scheduled 10 :59:3 1 17 know, technology in EDA. 10 :57 :11 17 presentation from your employers at Synopsys? 10 :59 :36 18 Q . And the people who attend this are exchanging 10:57:13 18 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 10 :59 :39 19 ideas and approaches that they can then implement if 10 :57:17 19 A. My employers were aware that presentation was 10 :59:4 1 20 they don't violate a patent, correct? 10 :57 :21 20 going to be made . They did not object to my sending in 10 :59 :49 21 A. Right. 10:57 :24 21 a paper and the announcement. 10:59:5 9 22 Q . So the idea Is to exchange information and 10 :57:24 22 Q . And in fact you had alerted Synopsys that you 11 :00 :02 23 ideas? 10 :57 :27 23 intended to do this presentation back in April of 1996; 11:00 :06 24 A. Certainly . 10 :57 :27 24 is that correct? 11 :00 :1 0 25 Q . In this description -- by the way, did you 10 :57 :28 25 A . Yes, that's correct . 11 :00:10 55 57

15 (Pages 54 to 57) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Q. And that was something that you included in 11 :00 :11 1 Theory to Practice," Narendra Shenoy from Synopsys . 11 :05 :08 2 your objectives and in your employment review at 11 :00 :16 2 How did it come about that your presentation 11 :05 :1 5 3 Synopsys, correct? 11 :00:18 3 in which you would present your work on constant delay 11 :05 :20 4 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation . 11 :00 :22 4 was changed to the form of this presentation with three 11 :05 :25 5 A. I don't remember that. 11 :00 :2 3 5 different presenters? 11 :05 :30 6 Q. Dr . van Ginneken, the presentation, which is 11 :00 :26 6 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation . 11:05 :31 7 described at pages 2097 and 2098 of Exhibit 8, you 11 :00 :37 7 Assumes facts not testified to. 11 :05 :36 8 ultimately did not make that presentation on constant 11 :00 :44 8 A. Well, after the paper was submitted to ICCAD 11 :05 :4 2 9 delay that you had described in that announcement, did 11 :00 :48 9 and after advance program appeared, was published, IBM 11 :05 :45 jI0 you? 11 :00 :5 1 10 objected to the publication of the paper. Synopsys then 11 :05 :54 j11 A. That's right. 11:00 :5 1 11 asked me to retract the paper . So I contacted ICCAD and 11 :06 :02 12 Q. Did Ralph Otten present a presentation on 11 :00 :51 12 asked them to retract the paper, which they did . Since 11 :06 :08 13 this? 11 :00 :55 13 the paper was now retracted there was a lot In the 11 :06 :12 14 A. Yeah . Ralph Otten included some of 11 :00 :5 8 14 program which had to be filled. So this slot was going 11 :06:18 15 Sutherland and Sproull, you know, much of their work in 11 :01 :01 15 to be filled by three people, which is the presentation 11 :06 :21 16 his presentation . 11 :01 :07 16 you see here . Half an hour by Ralph Otten, half an hour 11 :06 :24 17 Q . And he included some of the formulas and 11 :01 :09 17 by myself, and half an hour by Narendra Shenoy . 11 :06 :3 0 18 equations that you had used? 11 :01 :12 18 Q. And the 1996 paper that was submitted was 11 :06 :39 19 A. He also included some of the equations and 11 :01 :14 19 entitled "Driving on the Left-Hand Side of the 11 :06 :45 20 ideas from the submission to ICCAD in his presentation 11 :01 :17 20 Performance Speedway ." Is that correct? 11 :06 :48 21 at ICCAD, yes. 11 :01 :2 1 21 A . Yes . 11 :06 :50 22 Q. And he also included a reference to using 11 :01 :23 22 Q. Can we refer to the 1996 paper as "Driving on 11 :06 :51 23 this technique from logic synthesis to physical layout, 11 :01 :29 23 the Left-hand Side"? 11 :06 :5 4 24 correct? 11 :01 :3 3 24 A. Uh-huh . 11:06 :56 1 25 MR . EDi LMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous,, 11 :01 :34 2 5 Q. When that paper -- that paper was invited -- 11 :06 :57 58 60

1 A. There Is a reference on the last slide that 11 :01 :35 1 .was an invited paper to this conference ; is that 11 :07 :08 2 suggests layout is involved . 11:01 :41 2 correct? 11 :07 :12 3 Q . I'd like to show you the slides that were 11 :01 :46 3 A. Yes, that was correct . 11 :07 :12 4 used . You were present for that presentation by 11 :01 :50 4 Q. What does that mean? 11 :07 :1 3 5 Professor Otten, correct? 11 :01 :53 5 A. , That means it's not a paper that goes through 11 :07 :15 6 A. Yes, I was. 11 :01 :55 6 the ordinary review process. The paper was submitted 11 :07 :20 7 MR. RILEY : For the record, for counsel from 11 :02 :07 7 later than papers that are reviewed, and it was 11 :07 :24 8 Synopsys, we produced these slides as black and white 11 :02 :10 8 submitted at a time for the final draft of the paper was 11 :07 :28 9 slides at 2051 through 2072 . So you've had the black 11 :02 :14 9 required . . 11 :07 :36 10 and whites . We blew them up . It's the same content . 11 :02 :22 10 Q . Did anyone, to your knowledge, from ICCAD 11 :07 :37 11 We blew them up as color sides for you and put Bates 11 :02 :26 11 execute a confidentiality agreement when you submitted 11 :07 :40 12 stamp numbers on them . So I'd like to hand you those, 11 :02 :29 12 this paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 11 :07:4 4 13 and we'll use the color because they're much easier to 11 :02 :33 13 A. No. 11:07 :48 14 read as deposition exhibits . So there's the production . 11 :02:37 14 Q. When did you first learn that Professor Otten 11 :07 :48 15 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 9 .) 11 :03:21 15 was going to present ideas from "Driving on the 11 :07 :56 16 MR . RILEY: Exhibit 9 is entitled "Speed: 11:04 :04 16 Left-hand Side" at this public conference? 11 :07 :58 17 New Paradigms In Design for Performance ." It's Bates 11 :04:08 17 A. I learned of that shortly before the 11 :08:04 18 stamped -- and again, these were previously produced, 11 :04 :14 18 presentation. I think it was one or two days before. 11:08 :09 19 but these are new Bates stamps numbers on the color 11 :04 :16 19 To prepare for the presentation we were combining the 11 :08 :18 20 copies -- Magma 0517409 through Magma 0517494 . 11 :04:19 20 slides I made from my presentation with Ralph Otten's 11 :08 :21 21 Q. Dr. van Ginneken, If you could turn to page 11 :04 :37 21 slides, and we flipped through the slides, and it became 11 :08 :25 22 0517410, the second page of the exhibit. There are 11 :04 :41 22 clear to me that at that time that there was some 11 :08 :30 23 three presentations there: "Tuning for Speed" by 11 :04 :54 23 information about constant delay in the presentation . 11 :08 :33 24 Professor Otten; your presentation, "Synthesis for 11 :05 :00 24 Q. If we could turn to Professor Otten's 11 :08 :40 25 Interconnect," Dr. van Ginneken; and then "Retiming from 11 :05 :03 25 presentation at page 0517413 . There's a subject 11 :08 :45 59 61

16 (Pages 58 to 61) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 entitled "Constant Delay Synthesis ." Is that where he 11 :09:06 1 and parasitic delays . Isn't this also the same work 11 :13 :22 2 was presenting your ideas on constant delay synthesis? 11 :09 :11 2 that you had done on constant delay? 11 :13:2 8 3 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:09 :16 3 MR . EDELMAN : game objection . 11:13 :30 4 Lack of foundation . 11 :09:19 4 A. Well, it appears in the paper, but much of 11 :13 :31 5 A. Yes, some of them . And also a lot of 11 :09 :20 5 this appears earlier in Sutherland . 11:13 :34 6 Sutherland and Sproull's ideas. 11 :09:26 6 . Q . But this is still the foundation for much of 11 :13 :38 7 Q. On page 0517414 of Professor Otten's 11 :09:29 7 your work on constant delay? 11 :13 :40 8 presentation, there is a diagram of a VLSI theory 11 :09 :33 8 A. Yes . 11 :13 :42 9 hierarchy . Have you seen this before? 11 :09 :40 9 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11 :13 :43 10 A. Have I seen this slide before? 11 :09 :47 10 Q. Page 442, which draws a number of equations 11 :13:44 11 Q. This -- you've seen all of these slides 11 :09:50 11 related to determining the delay on a path, aren't these 11 :13 :51 12 before, correct? 11 :09:52 12 equations also part of a foundation of the work that you 11 :14 :00 13 A. Yes. 11:09 :53 13 did on constant delay? 11 :14 :0 2 14 Q. And this concept, have you seen this concept 11 :09 :53 14 A. Yes . 11 :14 :05 15 presented other than in these slides? 11 :09 :59 15 Q. On page 7443, again Professor Otters is 11 :14 :06 16 A. Concept of a hierarchy? 11 :10 :02 16 continuing the equations for this determination of the 11 :14:14 17 Q. Yes, this particular concept of a hierarchy . 11:10:03 17 delays on a path . Isn't this also a part of the 11 :14 :21 18 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:10 :06 18 foundation of your work in constant delay? 11 :14:2 5 19 A. Yes. 11:10 :07 19 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:14 :27 20 Q. Can you please turn to the point where 11 :10 :09 20 A. Yes. 11 :14 :28 21 Professor Otten begins to develop the ideas which you 11 :10 :12 21 Q . And then at page 444, -Professor Otten has a 11 :14 :29 22 believe he took from your paper "Driving on the 11 :10 :17 22 conclusion there that is in red with regard to the 11 :14 :36 23 Left-hand Side"? . 11:10 :18 23 delays on a path . Isn't that also at the foundation of 11 :14:39 24 A . Well, first Professor Otten presented a lot 11 :10 :46 24 the work that you did on constant delay? 11 :14 :44 25 of the Ideas from Sutherland and Sproull . I believe 11 :10:48 25 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11:14 :46 62 64

1 he's starting around page 517435, and he presented the 11 :10 :51 1 A. Yes . 11 :14 :47 2 derivation of their models in the subsequent slides . 11 :11 :04 2 Q . And then Professor Otten has a block of text 11 :14:47 3 Q. If I could stop you, Dr, van Ginneken . At 11:11 :37 3 that says "Principle of uniform stage effort : Path 11 :15 :01 4 page 517436 he gives a simplified model? 11 :11 :39 4 delay is minimized when each stage bears the same 11 :15 :04 5 A. Yes. 11:11 :47 5 effort ." And that's a conclusion from Sutherland and 11 :15:08 6 Q. "A simplified model (no wire load) ." Didn't 11 :11 :48 6 Sproull that you also relied on, correct? 11 :15 :1 1 7 you use this same simplified model In deriving many of 11 :11 :52 7 A. Right . 11 :15 :14 8 your ideas on constant delay? 11 :11 :58 8 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:15 :14 9 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:11 :59 9 Q. And in fact that, as you discussed earlier, 11 :15 :16 10 A. Yes. 11:12 :00 10 that is a principle that you relied on in connection 11 :15 :20 11 Q. And then at page 439, there are a number of 11 :12 :02 11 with the conception of the initial intended delay that 11 :15 :25 12 equations, and then you can see the delay equation 11:12 :18 12 we discussed, correct? 11 :15:3 0 13 that's represented there in red . Isn't that also the 11 :12 :22 13 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11:15 :31 14 equations that you used in your work on constant delay? 11 :12 :28 14 A. Yes. 11 :15 :3 3 15 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:12 :31 15 Q. At the next page, 446, there is a discussion 11 :15 :33 16 A. Yes. 11:12 :33 16 of computing effort, and it distinguishes inherent 11 :15 :43 17 Q. And then at page 440, the conclusion is drawn 11 :12 :36 17 delay, restoring effort and computing effort . You also 11 :15 :49 18 by Professor Otten if C over L -- I'm sorry -- "If CL 11 :12 :45 18 relied on this in connection with your work on constant 11 :15 :55 19 over CIN Is kept constant, delay does not vary either ." 11:12:51 19 delay, correct? 11 :15 :58 20 Isn't that an observation that you also made in 11 :12 :56 20 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:15 :59 21 connection with your work on constant delay? 11 :12 :59 21 A. Yes. 11:16:0 0 22 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:13 :01 22 Q . The next page, 447, there is further 11 :16:00 23 A . Yes. 11:13 :03 23 discussion of computing effort, and there is shown a 11 :16:06 24 Q. And then the next page, 441, there is a 11 :13 :03 24 CMOS circuit and a reference to Sutherland and Sproull . 11:16:11 25 discussion of the gain on a path as a function of effort 1-1 :13:12 25 You also relied on this in connection with your work in 11 :16 :16 63 65

17 (Pages 62 to 65 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 lf6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 ! constant delay, correct? 11 :16 :19 1 additional buffers. Determine the effort borne by each 11 :19 :2 8 2 MR. EDELMAN : Same objection. 11:16:24 2 state," and then "generalized for resistive 11:19:33 3 Q. At page 448 Professor Otten draws some 11 :16 :25 3 interconnect." 11:19:3 5 4 further observations with regard to computing effort . 11 :16 :29 4 Now, other than the branching that Sutherland 11 :19 :39 it 5 You also relied on this in connection with your work in 11 :16 :33 5 did, isn't it true you followed these same steps in 11 :19 :43 6 constant delay, correct? 11 :16 :37 6 connection with your work on constant delay? 11 :19 :4 6 7 MR. EDELMAN: Same objection . 11 :16:39 7 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11 :19:4 9 8 A. Yes. 11 :16 :39 8 Compound . 11 :19 :52 9 Q. And then Professor Otten gives yet another 11 :16 :40 9 A. Yes. I also have to make an exception for 11 :19 :5 2 10 example in which he is computing a gain and relying on 11 :16 :48 10 the resistive interconnect, which Venkat had proposed a 11 :19:5 6 11 Sutherland and Sproull . You also relied on this in 11 :16:52 11 generalization of Sutherland's work to handle resistive 11 :20:02 12 connection with your work on constant delay, correct? 11 :16:54 12 interconnect in a placed circuit. Our approach to 11:20:06 13 MR. EDELMAN : Same objection . 11 :16:58 13 resistive interconnect is a little bit different than 11 :20:13 14 A. Yes. 11 :17 :03 14 Venkat . However, that's not covered in the patent, in 11 :20 :1 6 15 Q. And then on page 450 where he is highlighting 11 :17 :03 15 any of the patent applications. 11 :20 :2 1 16 restoring effort, again citing Sutherland and Sproull, 11:17 :12 16 Q . But this general approach is the same that 11 :20 :2 5 17 you also relied on that in your connection with your 11 :17:16 17 you used in constant delay, correct? 11 :20:28 18 work on constant delay, correct? 11 :17 :18 18 A. Yes. 11 :20 :3 0 19 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11 :17:20 19 Q. And then on the next page under perspectives, 11 :20 :3 1 20 A. Yes. 11 :17 :21 20 he has "Optimizing stage effort is global buffer tree 11 :20 :4 2 21 Q . And then at page 451 where he is relating 11 :17 :21 21 insertion," Did you follow that principle in your work 11 :20 :45 22 restoring effort and branching effort, you also, relied 11 :17:24 22 on constant delay? 11 :20:49 23 on this in connection with your work on constant delay, 11 :17:32 23 MR. EDELMAN : Vague and ambiguous. 11:20:51 24 correct? 11 :17:35 24 A. I'm not completely sure what he is talking 11 :20 :54 25 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11 :17 :37 25 about here, but we certainly inserted buffers globally 11 :20:5 8 66 68

1 A . Well, you know, when it comes to branching 11 :17 :38 1 to optimize stage effort. 11 :21 :04 2 effort there's significant differences between our 11 :17 :40 2 Q. And then you also did area estimation, 11 :21 :0 8 3 approach and Sutherland's approach . 11 :17 :44 3 correct? 11 :21 :1 1 4 Q. Explain to me how there are differences . 11 :17 :52 4 A. Yes. 11 :21:1 2 5 A. Again, I have to recall exactly what 11 :17:55 5 Q . On the next page 456, there is a discussion 11 :21 :12 6 Sutherland tried to do with his branching effort, but he 11 :17:58 6 of "the area of a gate i if required to achieve the 11 :21:28 7 kind of tries to salvage his chain analysis in the 11 :18 :02 7 constant delay with unit loading," and a determination 11 :21 :35 8 presence of branches, and in the models that we derived 11 :18 :07 8 of capacitance at output based on the fanout . Did you 11:21 :39 9 don't really follow his method . I think, you know, his 11:18:19 9 also use this approach in your constant delay work? 11 :21 :44 10 approach to branching is not as useful in the context of 11 :18 :22 10 MR . EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:21 :46 j 11 logic synthesis . 11 :18 :33 11 A. Yes. Actually, this is kind of what we 11 :21 :48 12 Q . On page 453, there Is the principle of 11 :18 :37 12 replaced Sutherland's ideas about branching effort with . 11 :21 :52 13 uniform stage effort I believe we discussed earlier. 11 :18 :39 13 Q. With this concept of fanout? 11:21 :5 6 14 You did rely on this in your work on constant delay, 11 :18 :43 14 A. Yeah. 11:22 :0 0 15 correct? 11 :18:46 15 Q. And then on page 457, where there is further 11 :22 :0 1 16 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11 :18 :47 16 discussion using a vector notation to discuss the area 11 :22 :07 17 A. Yes, except that here It includes also his 11 :18:48 17 of network in the constant delay model, that is also the 11 :22:12 18 branching effort variable, which we never used . 11 :18:52 18 work that you did on constant delay, correct? 11 :22 :16 19 Q. Right. So you used a simpler version? 11 :19 :02 19 A. Yes, That was an ICCAD paper. 11 :22 :19 20 A. A simpler version of this, yes. 11:19:04 20 Q. And then on the next page, there is a 11 :22 :2 3 21 Q. And then it has -- on page 454 there is under 11 :19 :06 21 reference to mapping for delay. You also did mapping 11 :22 :29 22 perspectives optimizing stage effort and then applies 11 :19 :15 22 for delay, correct? 11 :22:3 5 23 the principle of uniform stage effort, and it says, 11 :19:18 23 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11 :22:3 8 24 "Assume the path effort GBH Is known . Calculate the 11 :19:21 24 A. The paper described mapping for delay, yes . 11:22 :3 9 25 optimum number of stages . Insert, If necessary, 11 :19 :25 25 If that's what you mean, yes . 11:22 :43 67 69 18 (Pages 66 to 69) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348816b443 1 Q. And Grodstein had also done that? 11 :22 :44 1 A. No, I don't think so. 11:25:42 2 A. And Grodsteln had already describes mapping 11 :22 :46 2 Q. Then there's a question, "How to generate 11 :25:43 3 for delay as related to constant delay . 11 :22 :54 3 continuously sizable libraries?" Isn't it true that you 11 :25:45 4 Q . And then there's a reference to technology 11 :22 :59 4 raise that issue in connection wi th the work that you 11 :25:50 5 mapping for leaf dags to Keutzer, paper by Kirk Keutzer. 11 :23 :02 5 did at Synopsys on constant delay, including "Driving on 11 :25:52 6 Do you know that paper? 11 :23 :06 6 the Left-hand Side"? 11 :25:56 7 A. Yes . 11 :23 :09 7 MR. EDELMAN : Vague and ambiguous . 11 :25:57 8 Q . Did you rely on that paper in connection with 11 :23 :13 8 A . Yes. 11 :25:58 9 your work on constant delay? 11 :23 :15 9 Q. And then there's a question , " How to handle 11 :25:59 10 A. Well, It's one of the, you know, important 11 :23 :23 10 discrete libraries?" Isn't it true that th at is a 11 :26 :03 11 papers in mapping. I wouldn't say that we used that 11 :23 :26 11 question that you raised in connection with your work on 11 :26 :07 12 information exclusively, but certainly, you know, that's 11 :23:30 12 constant delay at Synopsys and in your paper "Driving on 11 :26:10 13 kind of the state of the art in mapping, as far as 11 :23 :34 13 the Left-hand Side"? 11 :26:1 3 14 dynamic programming goes . It's certainly a known data 11 :23 :41 14 A. Yes. 11 :26 :15 15 point, point of reference of existing algorithms . 11:23 :44 15 Q. And then there 's a question or a point, 11 :26:15 16 Q . And then It says "increase the search space," 11 :23:49 16 "Accuracy of th e time models, how applicable in deep 11 :26:20 17 and that appears to be a reference to the Lehman paper, 11 :23:52 17 submicron regimes? " Isn't it true you raised that 11 :26:25 18 which was a companion to the Grodstein paper which you 11 :23 :56 18 question in connection with the work you did on constant 11 :26:29 19 relied on, correct? 11 :23 :59 19 delay at Synopsys and in your paper "Driving on th e 11 :26:32 20 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for 11 :24 :00 20 Left-hand Side"? 11 :26:34 21 speculation . 11:24 :01 21 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. .11 :26:34 22 A. Right. 11:24 :02 22 A . Accuracy, I think , yes . Applicable in deep 11 :26:36 23 MR. EDELMAN : Vague and ambiguous . 11 :24 :02 23 .submicron regimes, that's a little vague , but I don 't 11 :26:44 24 Q . And then on the next page, page 459, there's 11 :24 :13 24 th ink I raised the-,issue which people normally would 11 :26:48 25 a reference to implicit sizing and two observations : no 11 :24:18 2 5 associate with that. 11 :26:51 70 72

1 Iterative timing analysis, no local minima because of 11 :24 :23 1 Q. Didn't you raise th e issue that as you get 11 :26 :5 3 2 step-wise Improvement . 11 :24 :28 2 deeper into the submicron regime the RC factor for wire 11 :26 :5 7 3 Did you understand these to be observations 11 :24:31 3 load becomes a more important consideration for the 11 :27:0 2 4 about the benefits of using the constant delay 11 :24 :33 4 constant delay model? 11:27 :05 5 technology? 11 :24 :38 5 A. Yes. 11 :27 :06 6 A. Yes, 11 :24 :40 6 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 11 :27 :07 7 Q . Did you also make that observation in the 11 :24 :41 7 Q. I'm sorry, your answer was? 11 :27 :08 8 work that you had done in your paper "Driving on the 11 :24 :45 8 A. Yes . 11 :27 :1 1 9 Left-Hand Side"? 11 :24:50 9 Q . And you understood my point? 11 :27 :1 1 10 A. Yes. 11 :24 :50 10 A. Yes. 11 :27 :1 2 11 Q . And in the end, Professor Otten lists some 11 :24 :51 11 Q. And then the obse rvation is, "The gap between 11 :27:1 3 12 open questions . He says, "Don't be fooled. The problem 11 :25 :06 12 layout and higher level synthesis is narrowed , but how 11 :27:1 8 13 did not change but the viewpoint did ." Did you 11 :25:08 13 to effectuate It?" Did you make observations similar to 11 :27 :2 3 14 understand this to be a reference to what you have 11 :25 :12 14 th at in connection with your work on constant delay and 11 :27 :27 15 referred to as a change in philosophy or a change in 11 :25 :16 i5 in your paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 11 :27 :30 16 paradigm? 11 :25 :20 16 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 11 :27 :32 17 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 11 :25 :21 17 A. Yes. 11 :27 :3 3 18 A. Yes . 11 :25 :22 18 MR . RILEY : We now have to change the tape . 11:27:36 19 Q . Sorry? 11 :25:22 19 Thank you. 11 :27 :38 - 20 A. Yes. 11 :25 :23 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record. The 11:27:3 9 21 Q . And then there's a question, "What happens to 11 :25:24 21 time now is approximately 11 :27 a .m . This is the end of 11 :27 :4 1 22 yield?" How to maintain robustness under continuous 11 :25:29 22 tape No . 1 in the deposition of Lukas van Ginneken . 11:27 :46 23 sizing?" Is that an observation that you made In 11 :25 :33 23 (Recess .) 11 :27:50 24 connection with your work at Synopsys on constant delay? 11 :25 :36 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record. 11 :38:54 25 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11 :25 :40 2 5 The time now is approximately 11 :38 a.m., and this is 11:38:56 71 73

19 (Pages 70 to 73 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b934861 6b443 1 the beginning of tape No . 2 in the deposition of Lukas 11:39:01 1 want the record to reflect that we waived any privilege . 11 :41:18 2 van Ginneken . 11 :39:0 4 2 MR. RILEY: We will agree that you haven't 11 :41:20 3 Q. Dr. van Ginneken , earlier we were discussing 11 :39:11 3 pained any privilege . 11:41:22 4 that you understood that other engineers are entitled to 11 :39:14 4 Q . Please answer the question . 11 :41 :23 5 rely on material in the public domain , presentations and 11 :39:19 5 A. My understanding was that Synopsys did not 11 :41 :24 6 publications, unless they're patented . Do you remember 11 :39:23 6 / want to patent it because the patent would be jointly 11 :41 :29 7 your testimony on that point? 11 :39:26 7 owned with IBM, and the matter was discussed whether 11 :41 :3: 8 MR. EDELMAN : Objection , calls for a legal 11 :39:28 8 Prabhakar Kudva was the inventor, but the conclusion was 11 :41:41 9 conclusion . 11 :39:29 9 that regardless whether he was an inventor or not, even 11 :41 :45 10 A. Yes. 11 :39:3 0 1 if he was not, the patent would still be jointly owned 11 :41 :49 11 Q. With regard to the presentation that 11 :39:30 1; by -- because of the joint development agreement that 11 :41 :52 12 Professor Otten made that we have just been through on 11 :39:33 11 Synopsys and IBM entered into . . 11 :41 :54 13 constant delay synthesis and its use from logic 11 :39:35 1; Q . So it was your understanding that Synopsys 11 :42 :01 14 synthesis to layout , was there any restriction on the 11 :39 :40 1' decided not to patent any aspects of the work you did on 11 :42 :04 15 people who could attend that presenta tion ? 11:39 :44 15~ constant delay because they did not want to share the 11 :42 :08 16 A. No, there was not . 11 :39 :49 16 ' patent ownership with IBM ; isn't that correct? 11 :42 :14 1 17 Q. There were no nondisclosure agreements that 11 :39:50 17i A. That's correct. 11 :42 :1 3 18 were signed? 11 :39:5 2 18 Q . And how did you arrive at that understanding? 11 :4 :13 19 A. No . 11:39:52 1'i MR. EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation . 11 :42:16 20 Q. And so as far as you knew, everything that he 11 :39:53 20 ; A . Synopsys told rne . Somebody at SynopSys . 11 :42 :18 21 talked about, which we 've briefly touched on in Exhibit 11 :39:55 21' Q. And you were actively involved in preparing 11 :42 :23 22 9, entered the public domain ; is that corre ct? 11 :40:00 22 drafts of the patent applications on constant delay, 11 :42 :16 23 MR. EDELMAN : Objection . Calls fora legal 11 :40:03 23 correct? 1142 :2 8 24 conclusion. Calls for speculation . 11 :40:04 24 A . Yes; 11 :42 :2 9 25 A. Yes, 11 :40 :07 1' _ f\ And was anycna else working with you on that? 11 42 :29 74 76

1 Q. And in fact that material had not been 11 :40 :07 1 A. There was an attorney . 11 :42:34 2 patented, had it? 11 :40 :10 2 Q . Were there any other engineers working on 11 :42:36 3 A. No. 11:40 :12 3 that? 11 :42 :38 4 Q. In fact, Synopsys decided not to patent 11 :40:13 4 A. No. 11 :42:3 8 5 anything on constant delay, correct? 11 :40 :16 5 Q . So you were in a position to know because you 11 :42:38 6 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for 11 :40 :18 6 were the author of the patent application , right? 11:42 :41 7 speculation. 11 :40 :19 7 MR. EDELMAN , Objection , vague and ambiguous. 11 :42:43 8 A. That's correct. 11:40 :20 8 A. Yes . 11 :42 :4 5 9 Q. Why? 11 :40 :21 9 Q. And you were told by someone at Synopsys that 11 :42:46 10 MR . EDELMAN ., Objection . Calls for 11 :40 :24 10 Synopsys would rather not patent your inventions because 11 :42:51 11 speculation . 11:40 :26 1 1 they did not want to share them with IBM as a joint 11:42 :57 12 A. Synopsys decided not to patent the 11:40 :26 12 venture in the joint project that you were working on ? 11 :43:00 13 inventions, When IBM objected again to the publication, 11 :40 :30 13 MR . EDELMAN : Again, to the extent that that 11 :43 :04 14 Synopsys not only wanted to withdraw the ICCAD paper, 11 :40 :43 14 informa ti on was conveyed to you by counsel or through 11 :43:06 15 "Driving on the Left-hand Side," but also decided to 11 :40 :49 15 counsel, I would hope the witness would not answer that , 11 :43:10 16 stop work on the patent application, and the reason for 11 :40 :52 16 and I would instruct the witness on behalf of Synopsys 11 :43:12 17 that was that patent application -- 11 :40 :57 17 not to answer that question . 11 :43:14 18 MR. EDELMAN : I'm sorry to interrupt . I just 11 :41 :00 16 A. I do not remember. 11 :43:1 6 19 want to make sure that to the extent you're testifying 11 :41 :03 19 MR. BULCHIS: As your a ttorney you may answer 11 :43 :18 20 on the reason that Synopsys did or didn't do things that 11 :41 :07 20 that question . 11 :43 :20 21 you're not revealing any communications you had with 11 :41 :10 21 A. I do not remember exactly who gave me this 11 :43 :21 22 counsel for Synopsys. 11 :41 :13 22 informa ti on . But what was the question again ? 11 :43 :26 23 MR . RILEY : Just asking for his 11 :41:14 23 MR . RILEY : I'm sorry, could you read the 11 :43:29 24 understanding . 11 :41 :15 24 question back again, please , before the interruption . 11 :43:31 25 MR. EDELMAN : I understand. I just don't 11 :41 :15 25 And again, I'm asking for your understanding and wish 11 :43:34 75 77

20 (Pages 74 to 77) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 you to give me a full answer, 11 :43:38 1 Q. Did you discuss the idea of patenting 11:45:56 2 (Record read as requested .) 11:43 :53 2 constant delay with anyone from IBM while you were 11 :45:5 8 3 MR. EDELMAN. Again, to the extent that 11 :43 :53 3 working on the NGSS project? 11 :46 :0 1 4 communication came from counsel, then that's 11 :43 :54 4 A. No. 11:46 :04 5 attorney-client privileged communication . 11 :43:56 5 Q . Were you told by anyone at Synopsys that you 11 :46 :04 6 A. Yes. 11 :44 :00 6 should not discuss the idea of patenting constant delay 11 :46 :1 1 7 Q. And you don't recall who it was at Synopsys 11 :44:02 7 with people from IBM? 11 :46 :14 8 that told you that? 11 :44 :03 8 MR. EDELMAN : Same objection. To the extent 11 :46:1 7 9 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11 :44 :05 9 there are communications under the direction of counsel 11 :46:1 8 10 A. I don't recall that . 11:44 :06 10 with Synopsys for Synopsys, that question should not be 11 :46:2 0 11 Q. But you recall very clearly that you were 11 :44 :07 11 answered . 11 :46 :23 12 told that Synopsys would not patent any aspect of 11 :44:09 12 A. Repeat the question. 11:46:27 13 constant delay because they did not want to share that 11 :44:15 13 (Record read as requested .) 11:46:37 14 patent with IBM; Is that correct? 11 :44 :18 14 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 11:46 :3 8 15 A. That Is correct. 11 :44 :20 15 A. Yes. 11 :46 :3 9 16 MR . EDELMAN : Objection . I just want to make 11 :44 :20 16 Q. What were you told? 11 :46 :39 17 It clear on the record that I can't stop the witness 11 :44 :22 17 MR . EDELMAN . Same objection . 11 :46 :4 1 18 from answering the question, I'm not his counsel, but to 11 :44 :24 18 A. I don't remember this very clearly, but 11 :46 :42 19 the extent, as I believe may be possible, that any such 11 :44:28 19 Synopsys was definitely sensitive about discussing this 11 :46 :46 20 communIcation occurred from counsel, we would move to 11 :44 :31 20 with IBM . 11 :46 :49 21 strike that from the record, and we will have to make a 11 :44:33 21 Q . So following Professor Otten's presentation 11 :47:t4 22 motion to that effect if that's what the investigation 11 :44:36 22 at the ICCAD conference in November of 1996 of the ideas 11 :47 :16 23 Indicates . 11:44:40 23 in Exhibit 9, you understood that others could use those 11 :47:22 24 Q . So the foundation Is clear, you don't recall 11 :44:40 24 ideas and build on them, correct? 11 :47:27 - 25 who told you that information, correct? 11 :44 :42 25 A. Yes. 11 :47 :3 0 78 80

1 A. That's correct.' 11 :44 :44 1 Q. And in fact Professor Otten continued to 11 :47 :30 2 Q.-- And you had communications about the work you 11 :44 :44 2 discuss, explore and describe these ideas? 11 :47 :33 3 did on constant delay with persons who were not 11 :44 :46 3 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 11 :47 :37 4 attorneys at Synopsys, correct? 11 :44 :49 4 Q. Right? 11 :47 :39 5 A. Yes . 11 :44 :51 5 A. To some extent . I am not sure of the full 11 :47 :40 6 Q . In fact, you had discussions with your 11 :44:52 6 extent of that, but yes . 11 ;47:44 7 supervisors about the decision to patent It, correct? 11 :44:54 7 (Marked Deposition Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 .) 11:48:39 8 A. That's correct . 11:44:57 8 MR . RILEY: For the record, Exhibit 10 is a 11 :50 :09 9 MR. EDELMAN : Object . 11 :44 :58 9 two-page document that says Lipari School at the top, 11 :50 :1 1 10 Q. Who was your supervisor at Synopsys? 11 :44 :58 10 "Architecture Design and Validation Methods," Lipari 11 :50 :1 4 11 A. Well, that was kind of a complicated 11 :45 :00 11 Island, June 22nd, through July 5th, 1997. 11:50 :1 6 12 situation, because, first of all, I just changed from 11 :45 :03 12 Exhibit 11 is the table of contents for a 11 :50 :23 13 the Design Compiler Group to the Advanced Technology 11:45:06 13 book by Borger called Architecture Design and Validation 11 :50:3 0 14 Group, so in the Design Compiler Group my supervisor was 11 :45 :08 14 Methods, which grew out of the international summer 11 :50:3 5 15 George Swan . Then I changed to Advanced Technology 11 :45:14 15 school on architecture design and validation methods 11 :50 :42 16 Group right around that same time all of this happened . 11:45:16 16 held June 23rd through July 5th, 1997 on the island of 11 :50 :44 e: 17 My supervisor was Randy Allen . Now, as being In the 11 :45:21 17 Lipari. 11:50 :50 18 NGSS project there was a third supervisor, Robert 11 :45:27 18 And Exhibit 12 is a paper from that book by 11 :50:50 19 Damiano, who was heading up the NGSS project . 11 :45 :31 19 Borger which is by Ralph Otten entitled, "A Design Flow 11 :51 :0 3 20 Q . And who did you, other than counsel, who do 11 :45:36 20 for Performance Planning : New paradigms for Iteration 11 :51 :0 9 21 you recall discussing the patent, the Idea of patenting 11 :45 :39 21 Free Synthesis." 11 :51 :14 22 some aspect of constant delay? 11 :45 :43 22 Q, Dr. van Ginneken, were you aware that 11 :51 :3 1 23 A. I recall Robert Damlano . I may have 11:45 :45 23 Professor Otten had given a course at the Lipari school 11 :51 :3 3 24 discussed It with the others, but I don't clearly recall 11 :45:53 24 during the summer of 1997 in which he discussed constant 11 :51 :3 8 25 that. 11 :45 :55 25 delay synthesis? 11 :51 :4 1 79 81

21 (Pages 78 to 81 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 A. I heard something like that . 11 :51 :46 1 A. Yes. 11 :55 :38 2 Q. But you didn't attend the course? 11 :51 :51 2 Q . And it Is a reference to Otten, van Ginneken 11 :55 :39 3 A, No . 11:51 :53 3 and Shenoy, "Speed : New Paradigms in Design for 11 :55 :45 4 Q . Didn't see any papers? 11 :51 :53 4 Performance," proceedings International Symposium on 11 :55 :48 5 A, I didn't see the paper, no. 11:51 :56 5 Computer-Aided Design, San Jose, California, USA, page 11 :55:50 6 Q . Were you aware that Professor Otten had 11 :51 :57 6 700, November 1996 . And that is a reference to the 11 :55:56 7 prepared and given a paper on constant delay synthesis 11 :52:03 7 proceedings that we just covered in Exhibit 9, correct? 11 :56:0 0 8 in April of 1998 in connection with a conference In 11 :52 :08 8 A. Yes. 11:56:08 9 Monterey? 11 :52 :14 9 Q. If you turn to page 107 of the paper, in the 11 :56 :09 10 A. Yes. 11 :52 :17 10 right-hand column, just underneath the equation which 11 :56 :34 11 Q . How did you learn about that? 11 :52 :17 11 relates restorative effort to input capacitance and 11 :56 :40 12 A. I was in the audience at the time of the 11 :52 :19 12 loading in output it says : The product of computing 11 :56 :49 13 presentation. 11 :52 :21 13 and restoring effort, g/f, is called the effort delay . 11:56 :52 14 Q. Did you subsequently obtain a copy of that 11 :52 :22 14 The important observation is that r can be kept constant 11 :56 :57 15 paper? 11 :52 :25 15 by fixing F equals CIN over CL . This leads to a new 11 :57 :02 16 A. I believe it was in proceedings . 11 :52 :26 16 paradigm in synthesis. Any delay imposed by synthesis 11:57 :08 17 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 13 .) 11 :52 :28 17 can be realized, provided that the sizes of the gates 11 :57 :13 18 Q, Exhibit 13 is a paper from ISPD, April 6 11 :53 :28 18 can be continuously adjusted . 11 :57 :1 5 19 through 8, 1998, Monterey, and it's entitled "Global 11 :53 :36 19 And that's a reference to your work which was 11 :57:18 20 Wires Harmful," Ralph Often . Is this the paper that you 11 :53 :42 20 discussed in April of 1996, correct? 11 :57:2 0 21 were referring to that you heard delivered at the 11 :53 :47 21 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 11 :57 :22 22 conference in Monterey? 11 :53 :51 22 A. Yes. 11 :57:24 23 A. Yes. 11:53 :54 23 Q . I'm sorry, it's a reference to the work that 11 :57 :24 24 Q. In the paper there's a discussion in section 11 :53 :54 24 you did that was discussed-in November of 1996, correct? 11 :57 :29 25 4 that relates to methodology and is a discussion of 11 :54 :03 2 5 MR . EDELMAN ., Same objection . 11:57 :31 82 84

1 both wire planning and fixed delays . Do these include 11:54 :16 1 A, Yes. 11 :57 :33 2 ideas related to constant delay that you worked on when 11 :54 :25 2 Q . After the paper which is Exhibit 13 was 11 :57 :33 3 you were at Synopsys? 11 :54:29 3 presented at the Monterey conference, did you undertake 11 :57 :49 4 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 11:54 :31 4 any effort to ensure that appropriate credit was given 11 :57 :55 5 A. Yes. 11 :54 :32 5 for the work that Mr . Otten was expounding on? 11 :58 :00 6 Q . Did you see this paper before It was 11 :54 :33 6 A. Yes. I was a little bit surprised to see 11 :58 :09 7 published? 11 :54:37 7 material from my submission to ICCAD appear in this 11 :58:11 8 A. No. 11:54 :38 8 paper. I wrote a letter to a number of individuals, 11 :58:16 9 Q . If you turn to page 108 of the paper, which 11 :54 :38 9 including Mr. Often, and as well as Synopsys, as well as 11 :58 :21 10 Is Bates stamped 1402, It states that 'The vision that 11 :54:44 10 IBM, as well as some people at the conference . 11 :58 :26 11 synthesis should be conducted with performance as a 11 :54 :52 11 Q. And were you concerned that the paper 11 :58 :31 12 constraint Is developed by Lukas van Ginneken ." Do you 11 :54 :55 12 "Driving on the Left-hand Side" of the performance 11:58 :35 13 know what that Is a reference to? 11 :54 :59 13 Speedway, your 1996 paper, contained information and 11 :58 :38 14 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, calls for 11 :55 :05 14 ideas from IBM? 11:58:43 15 speculation . 11:55:05 15 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 11 :58 :45 16 A. I believe that's a reference to the 11 :55 :06 16 compound . 11 :58 :48 17 submission to ICCAD to "Driving on the Left-hand Side" 11 :55 :08 17 A. Yes. 11 :58 :49 18 paper . 11 :55 :10 18 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 14 .) 11 :58 :50 19 Q . So you believe he Is acknowledging that the 11 :55 :12 19 Q. Exhibit 14 is a letter dated April 10, 1998, 11 :59:39 20 vision that you had related to constant delay that was 11 :55:15 20 Bates stamped 516817 through 516818 from you, Dr. van 11:59 :45 21 embodied in your submission in 1996 to ICCAD that is 11:55 :18 21 Ginneken, to a number of people . The first addressee is 11:59 :53 22 entitled "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 11 :55 :23 22 Professor Jacob White at MIT, correct? 11 :59 :5 9 23 A. Yes. 11 :55:26 23 A. Yes. 12 :00 :0 2 24 Q . And then I note that there Is a footnote, 11 :55:26 24 Q . When you wrote this letter you had no 12 :00:03 25 footnote 11, a reference 11 . Do you see that? 11 :55 :34 25 expectation that the letter itself would remain 12:00:06 83 85

22 (Pages 82 to 85) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 If6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 confidential, correct? 12 :00:09 2 A. That's correct . 12:00:1 0 3 Q. In fact, you circulated it to a number of 12 :00 :10 4 people, including other companies, correct? . 12:00 :12 5 A. Yes. 12:00 :17 6 Q. In that you refer to the 1996 paper, "Driving 12 :00 :17 7 on the Left-hand Side", and you state, "However, before 12 :00 :26 8 the actual conference, I had to withdraw my paper at the 12 :00 :31 9 request of our business partner, International Business 12 :00:35 10 Machines." Do you see that? 12 :00:3 8 11 A. Yes. 12:00 :41 12 Q . What was your understanding of the request 12 :00 :41 13 that IBM made to withdraw the paper "Driving on the 12 :00 :44 14 Left-hand Side? 12:00 :47 15 A. Can you explain the question? 12 :00 :50 16 Q . Yes. We've covered a little bit of this, but 12 :00 :5 8 17 I want to go through this in some detail . When did you 12 :01:01 18 first learn that IBM objected to the publication of the 12 :01 :08 19 paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 12 :01 :1 1 20 A . Shortly after the publication of the advanced 12 :01 :1 5 21 program . I believe it was sometime in September of '96. 12:01 :20 22 Q. And how did you first learn of IBM's 12 :01 :25 23 objections? 12:01 :28 24 A. I believe I received an E-mail from Leon Stok 12 :01 :29 25 from IBM . 12:01 :34 86 I speculation. 12 :08 :48 1 objections against publications so they might do so 12:12:54 2 A. I believe so . 12:08:48 2 again. 12:12:59 3 Q. And DAC is the Design Automation Conference, 12 :08:49 3 Q. So you copied Mr. Stok because you were 12 :12 :58 4 correct? 12 :08:56 4 concerned that IBM had not received appropriate credit 12 :13:01 5 A. Yes . 12 :08 :57 5 for the joint project work on constant delay , and IBM 12 :13 :06 6 Q . That's a major trade show for the EDA 12 :08 :57 6 had previously objected to the publication "Driving on 12:13 :11 7 industry, correct? 12 :08 :59 7 the Left-hand Side"? 12:13 :1 6 8 A, Yeah, DAC and ICCAD are the main two 12 :09 :02 8 A. Yes. 12 :13:1 8 9 conferences, the biggest conferences in EDA, 12 :09:06 9 Q . The first paragraph of Mr . Stok's letter 12:13 :18 4 10 Q. And so as of June of 1998, Professor Otten 12 :09 :10 10 says, The paper contained results from a joint IBM- 12 :13 :32 11 had publicly disclosed and discussed the constant delay 12 :09:18 11 Synopsys project and was withdrawn ." 12:13:38 12 synthesis technology at the April -- I'm sorry . As of 12 :09:24 12 Do you agree that the paper that you drafted 12 :13:4 2 13 June of 1998, Professor Otten had discussed the constant 12 :09 :32 13 and submitted to ICCAD, "Driving on the Left-hand Side" 12 :13 :4 5 14 delay technology at the November 1998 ICCAD 12 :09 :36 14 contained the results from a joint IBM-Synopsys project? 12 :13 :47 15 presentation? 12 :09 :42 15 A. Yes . 12 :13 :55 16 A. Yes. 12 :09 :45 16 Q . In fact, was all of your work on constant 12 :13 :55 17 Q . Misspoke again, excuse me . As of June -- 12 :09 :45 17 delay at Synopsys part of the IBM joint project? 12 :14 :00 18 I've got to get the dates straight, so I apologize . 12 :09:52 18 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 12 :14 :04 19 As of June 1998, Professor Otten had publicly 12 :09 :55 19 A. Yes. 12:14 :0 5 20 discussed and disclosed constant delay technology at, 12 :09 :59 20 Q . Sorry, your answer was yes? 12 :14 :0 5 21 first, the November 1996 ICCAD conference? 12 :10 :05 21 A . My answer was yes . 12 :14 :08 22 A. Yes. 12 :10 :10 22 .Q On the bottom of the first page of Exhibit 12 :14:1 0 23 Q, Second, the summer school class in Lipari in 12 :10 :10 23 17, Mr . Stok's letter, it says, "I would like to propose 12 :14 :2 3 24 Italy in 1997 ; in April of 1998 at the Monterey 12 :10 :14 24 a slot in the 1998 ICCAI] where a paper can be presented 12 :14:2 7 25 conference; and in June of 1998 at DAC, correct? 12 :10 :20 25 by the real originators of this work . Unfortunately, 12 :14 :3 2 90 92

1 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, compound . Vague and 12 :10:26 1 the above mentioned presentation happened on April 7th, 12:14:38 2 ambiguous as to the term "constant delay technology ." 12:10 :28 2 1998, and therefore the authors were not able to prepare 12 :14 :41 3 A. Correct. 12 :10 :30 3 a draft for the April 9th ICCAD '98 deadline . 12 :14:46 4 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 17.) 12:11 :18 4 "All proper clearances for the work that will 12 :14 :52 5 MR . RILEY : Exhibit 17 is Bates stamped Magma 12 :11:19 5 be presented have been obtained from all companies and 12:14 :57 6 516029 through Magma 516030 . It is a letter dated April 12 :11:27 6 individuals involved . The authors, Prabhakar Kudva, 12 :15 :00 7 28, 1998 from Leon Stok to Professor Jacob White . It is 12:11 :36 7 IBM; Lukas van Ginneken, Magma-DA ; and Narendra 12 :15 :05 8 copied to Robert Damian at Synopsys ; van Ginneken at 12:11 :42 8 Shenoy -5yn psyso are in the process of preparing a final 12 :15 :0 8 9 Magma; Prabhakar Kudva at IBM ; and Narendra Shenoy at 12 :11 :45 9 draft of their paper ." 12 :15:1 1 10 Synopsys. 12:11 :49 10 Is that correct, as of April 28, 1998, were 12 :15 :19 11 Q. Do you recall receiving a copy of this 12 :11:57 11 you and the other two authors, Kudva and Shenoy, in the 12 :15 :26 12 letter, Dr. van Ginneken? 12 :11 :59 12 process of preparing a final draft of the paper? 12 :15 :29 13 A. Not clearly, no. 12:12 :03 13 A. Yes . 12 :15 :3 2 14 Q . It states -- how long have you known Leon 12 :12:04 14 Q . How did that take place that the three of you 12 :15:32 15 Stok, by the way? 12:12 :11 15 started to prepare a final draft of the paper that was 12 :15:38 16 A. Since mid'80s somewhere . 12 :12 :12 16 originally tiled "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 12 :15:40 17 Q. Why did you copy your letter to Professor 12 :12:23 17 A. We worked together, made changes to the 12:15 :43 18 White to Leon Stok? 12 :12 :25 18 original paper, discussed those changes, made further 12:15 :50 19 A. Because IBM was Involved In the joint 12 :12 :27 19 changes. 12 :15 :5 7 20 project. 12:12 :35 20 Q. Was this done under some sort of 12 :15 :5 7 21 Q. Were you concerned that IBM was not getting 12 :12:36 21 confidentiality agreement between the three of you? 12 :16 :0 0 22 credit for its participation In the joint project on 12 :12 :39 22 A. No. 12:16 :02 23 constant delay? 12 :12 :44 23 Q. Did you openly share and discuss the ideas in 12 :16 :03 24 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 12 :12 :46 24 the paper with others at Magma? 12 :16:05 25 A. Well, that and, you know, IBM made earlier 12 :12 :48 25 A. I discussed some of the ideas, yes. 12:16:1 1 91 93

24 (Pages 90 to 93) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Q . And did you offer to give acknowledgements to 12 :16:14 1 Prabhakar and Narendra? 12 :20 :13 2 those Magma employees In the drafts that you discussed 12 :16:17 2 A. I think so . 12:20:1 7 3 w€th IBM and Synapsys? 12 :16 :20 3 Q. Aid this come to you in a hard copy form Is 12 :20:28 4 A. Yes. I asked for them to be included in the 12 :16:23 4 that why you're making pencil changes on this document? 12 :20:32 5 acknowledgements. 12 :16:27 5 A. It did not come in a source form . I'm not 12 :20 :39 6 Q. And who were those employees of Magma that 12 :16 :27 6 sure exactly how it came to me . It may have been like a 12 :20 :4 7 7 you asked be Included In the paper because of the their 12 :16 :30 7 postscript file or a hard copy, 12 ;20 :50 8 contributions to the ideas that were being discussed? 12 :16 :33 8 Q . But you don't think It came to you in a soft 12 :20 :53 9 A. I believe they were Patrick Groeneveld and 12 :16 :37 9 copy. Why is that? 12 :20:5 7 10 Hamid Savoj . 12:16 :38 10 A. The source for this was in -- Pagemaker was 12 :20:5 9 11 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 18,) 12 :17 :43 11 the tool that was used to create the document, and we 12 :21 :0 8 12 Q . Exhibit 18 Is a draft paper entitled "Size 12 :18 :00 12 did not have access to Pagemaker at Magma, so it was 12:21 :1 5 13 Independent Synthesis ." The authors listed are Lukas 12 :18 :03 13 necessary for somebody at Synopsys to make all the 12 :21 :2 0 14 van Ginneken, Magma Design Automation ; Prabhakar Kudva, 12 :18 :08 14 changes that we agreed upon . 12:21 :2 3 15 IBM ; Narendra Shenoy, Synopsys . Have you seen this 12 :18:13 15 Q . And then at the end of the paper where the 12 :21 :2 5 16 before? 12 :18:16 16 acknowledgements are -- and again, you might be able to 12 :21 :3 1 17 A. Yes . 12 :18 :19 17 read this better on the color copy . At page 197, there 12:21:3 6 18 Q. How did you obtain this, Dr. van Ginneken? 12 :18:20 18 is some handwriting there under acknowledgements . Do 12 :21 :43 19 A . This paper? 12 :18 :26 19 you, see that? 12 :21 :46 } 20 Q. Yes . 12 :18 :27 20 A. Yes. 12 :21 :46 21 A. It was forwarded to me. 12 :18 :27 21 Q. Can you read that, please, for the record? 12 :21 :4 7 22 Q. Was It forwarded to you in hard copy or - 12 :18 :30 22 A. It says Patrick Groeneveld and Hamid S . 12:21 :4 8 23 let me ask you first, are these your handwritten notes 12 :18 :36 23 Q . And what did Patrick and Hamid contribute to 12 :21 :54 24 on here? 12 :18:39 24 this paper "Size Independent Synthesis" that led . you to 12 :22 :02 $ 25 A. Yes . 12 :18 :39 25 suggest that they be acknowledged? 12 :22 :08 94 96

1 Q. And it looks like on the first page there is 12 :18 :39 1 A. Well, they worked on Issues related to size 12 :22:1 1 2 some writing on the right-hand side . Do you recognize 12 :18 :45 2 independent synthesis . 12:22 :21 F 3 that? 12 :18 :48 3 Q . There is in the paper a discussion, for 12 :22:24 4 A. Its hard to read . 12:18 :50 4 example, of placement and size independence . Is that an 12 :22 :29 5 Q . I have a color copy of what was produced that 12 :18 :51 5 area where Patrick and Hamid contributed? 12 :22 :43 6 can show -- looks like this might have been written in 12 :18 :56 6 ' A . Yes. 12 :22 :50 7 pencil . Let me pass that to you . You can, of course, 12 :18 :58 7 Q. Was placement discussed in your draft of the 12 :22 :50 8 show it to Synopsys . Is that easier to read, Dr. van 12:19 :02 8 1996 paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 12 :22 :5 7 9 Ginneken? 12 :19 :09 9 A. I don't think so. 12 :23 :04 10 A. Somewhat easier. Still a little hard to see 12 :19 :09 10 Q . When you received the draft which you wrote 12 :23:04 11 what It says . 12 :19 :14 11 on, which is Exhibit 18, did you receive that for the 12 :23 :1 9 12 Q. Where it says size independent synthesis, is 12 :19 :15 12 first time in connection with this effort to rewrite the 12 :23 :26 13 that a reference to U-Pen? 12 :19 :20 13 paper to include the three authors, or did you receive 12 :23 :29 14 A. Yes. 12 :19:25 14- it at some earlier-point?. 12 :23 :3 3 15 Q . Who Is U-Pen Yuan? 12 :19 :26 15 A. I received it at that time . 12:23:3 5 16 A . U-Pin Yuan is a summer student who worked 12 :19 :27 16 Q . Did you, at any time, before you received the 12:23 :37 17 with me at Synopsys during the summer of'96 . . . . . 12 :19 :31 17 paper. for purposes of resubmitting it with three 12 :23 :43 18 Q. And where was Li-Pen in 1998, April of 1998? 12 :19 :37 18 authors, did you have in your possession a copy of any 12 :23 :48 19 A. He was at Avanti . 12:19 :43 19 version of "Driving on the Left-hand Side"? 12 :23 :5 2 20 Q . Did you discuss this paper, the redrafting of 12 :19:46 20 A. No . 12:23:54 21 this paper with Li-Pen while he was at Avanti? 12 :19 :50 21 Q . So just to be clear, in April, on or around 12:23:55 22 A. Yes. We asked for permission to put him on 12 :19 :57 22 April of 1998, was the first time you had seen any 12 :24 :0 0 23 the paper as a co-author . 12 :20:00 23 version of "Driving on the Left-hand Side" since you 12 :24 :04 24 Q . There Is some handwriting here at several 12 :20 :02 24 left Synopsys in May of 1997; is that correct? 12 :24 :0 8 25 points that will say P and N . Is that a reference to 12 :20 :09 25 A . That's correct. 12 :24 :1 3 95 97

25 (Pages 94 to 97 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 MR. RILEY : I'd like to have this marked as 12 :24 :32 I A . I don't know. 13 :42 :1 1 1 2 the next exhibit. Tell you what. Its 12 :24, I'm 12 :24:33 2 Q, So again, so the record is clear, Exhibit 20 13 :42:1 3 getting a little tired, so why don't we take a break, 12 :24 :38 3 came back into your possession in April of 1998 as part 13 :42:17 4 get some lunch . 12:24 :41 4 of the effort to resubmit the paper with your 13 :42:24 5 MR. EDELMAN: When do you want us back? 12 :24 :42 5 authorship, with Kudva's authorship, and Shenoy's 13 :42 :29 6 That's okay . I assume you're going all day . Do you 12 :24 :43 6 authorship; is that true? 13 :42:33 7 have any estimate of tomorrow? 12 :24 :47 7 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 13 :42 :34 8 MR . RILEY: I don't think so. I hope to 12 :24 :48 8 A. That's possible. I don't know for sure . 13:42 :3 6 9 finish today . 12 :24:50 9 It's also possible that I received this from Ralph 13 :42 :39 10 MR . EDELMAN: Okay. 12 :24 :5 1 10 Otten . 13 :42 :4 2 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 12 :24 :55 11 Q. From Professor Otten? 13 :42 :44 12 time now Is approximately 12:24 p .m . 12 :24 :58 12 A. Yes . 13 :42:4 5 13 (Lunch Recess .) 13 :38 :54 13 Q . Did you take it with you from Synopsys when 13 :42 :46 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record . 13 :38 :55 14, you left Synopsys? 13 :42 :5 0 15 The time now Is approximately 1 :38 p .m. 13 :38 :58 i5 A. No, I did not. 13 :42 :5 0 16 BY MR, RILEY: 13 :39 :00 16 Q. So do you recall when it first came into your 13 :42:51 17 MR . RILEY : Dr. van Ginneken, we have marked 13 :39 :01 17 possession after you left Synopsys? 13 :42 :55 18 as Exhibit 19 a draft of the paper by you, Kudva and 13 :39 :02 18 A. No, I do not. 13:42 :57 19 Shenoy produced by Synopsys . It's Bates stamped SY 5273 13 :39 :10 19 Q . Dr. van Ginneken, I'd like to return to the 13 :42 :58 20 through 5280 . Pass copies to counsel . 13 :39 :18 20 Grodstein and Lehman papers which are Exhibits 3 and 4 . 13 :44 :07 21 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 19 .) 13 :39 :3 1 21 When did you first become aware of the work 13 :44 :16 22 Q. Exhibit 19 appears to be the draft, the same 13 :39:33 22 by Grodstein and Lehman which is in Exhibits 3 and 4? 13 :44:36 23 draft as the Exhibit 18, but without your handwriting . 13 :39:45 23 A. At ICCAD '95, the conference I attended the 13 :44 :40 24 Would you take a quick look at that and confirm it . 13:39:54 24 presentations . 13 :44 :45 25 A. Yeah, looks like it. 13:40:05 25 Q . And at that time, which would have'been 13 :44 :48 98 100

1 Q . When you were provided with these drafts, 13 :40:07 1 November of 1995 -- 13 :44 :51 2 were there any confidentiality designations attached to 13 :40 :16 2 Correct? 13 :44 :52 3 these drafts? 13 :40 :2 4 3 A. Yes. 13 :44 :53 4 A. No. 13 :40 :2 5 4 Q. -- you were working at Synopsys, correct? 13 :44:53 5 Q . Did Synopsys provide you with any other 13 :40:25 5 A. Yes. 13 :44 :58 6 material besides the redrafted versions 18 and 19? 13 :40 :31 6 - Q . Was this the first time that you had learned 13 :44 :59 7 A. No. 13 :40 :3 7 7 about the concept of a constant delay model for logic 13 :45 :03 8 Q. Did they provide you with a copy of the 13 :40 :37 8 synthesis? 13 :45 :09 9 original "Driving on the Left-hand Side" paper? 13 :40 :42 9 A. Not really. I mean, there are other papers . 13 :45 :1 1 10 A . Oh, yes. 13 :40 :44 10 I can't quote one right now, but there are other papers 13 :45 :17 11 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 20 .) 13:40 :45 11 that use constant delay models for restructuring of 13 :45 :20 12 Q . Exhibit 20 Is entitled "Driving on the 13 :40 :45 12 logic. Mostly these are tehnologically independent or 13 :45 :26 13 Left-hand Side of the Performance Speed-way ." It's 13 :41 :21 13 tend to be technologically independent papers . I think 13 :45 :30 14 Bates stamped Magma 517168 through Magma 517170 . Do you 13 :41 :26 14 this paper went beyond that in the sense that it had a 13 :45 :34 15 recognize this? 13 :41 :38 15 physical justification for the model. 13:45 :39 16 A . You've shown that tome before, yes. 13 :41 :42 16 Q . And what was that physical justification for 13 :45 :43 17 Q . Is this a draft of the "Driving on the 13 :41 :44 17 the model? 13 :45 :45 18 Left-hand Side" paper before you submitted to ICCAD? 13 :41 :4 8 18 A. The observation that delay could be kept 13:45 :46 19 A . I'm not sure when this draft was made . 13 :41 :55 19 constant through sizing . 13 :45 :5 0 20 Q . Was this the version that was submitted to 13 :41 :58 20 Q . In fact, let's look at the conclusion of the 13 :45 :52 21 ICCAD? 13 :42 :00 21 Gradstein paper, Exhibit No . 4 . It states, "In 13 :45 :5 7 22 A . It probably was . 13 :42 :02 22 conclusion, we have developed a new delay model. Our 13 :46 :13 23 Q . Is this your handwriting? 13 :42 :05 23 model keeps the delay of any cell constant by varying 13 :46 :16 24 A. No. 13 :42 :08 24 the cell's size in proportion to changes in its output 13 :46 :20 25 Q . Whose handwriting Is thls7 13 :42 :08 25 load ." 13 :46 :25 99 101

26 (Pages 98 to 101) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 A. Uh-huh . 13:46:27 1 Q. So you weren't keeping that approach that you 13 :49:28 2 Q. Was that idea fundamental to the work that 13 :46 :28 2 were pursuing a secret as -- 13 :49:3 6 3 you did on constant delay at Synopsys? 13 :46:31 3 A. No. 13:49:40 4 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous . 13:46:35 4 Q. I'm sorry? 13 :49:41 5 Calls for expert testimony. 13 :46 :37 5 A. No, not a secret . 13:49:4 1 6 A. Yes, it was . 13:46 :39 6 Q. You discussed it openly with Mr . Grodstein? 13 :49:43 7 Q. Was that idea fundamental to the work on 13 :46:39 7 A. Yes. 13 :49:4 6 8 constant delay that you did at Magma? 13 :46 :43 8 Q. Did he share any of his ideas with you about 13:49:46 9 A. Yes, It is. 13 :46 :48 9 constant delay and its application? 13 :49 :5 3 10 Q. Have you met with Joel Grodstein? 13 :46 :49 10 A. Yes, I believe he did . 13 :49 :5 7 11 A. Yes, I have. 13:46:57 11 Q. Was this a formal presentation or just a 13 :49:5 9 12 Q. When have you met with Mr . Grodstein? 13 :46:57 12 discussion? 13 :50:04 13 A. I don't recall the exact date, but I believe 13 :47 :02 13 A. Just a discussion. 13:50 :04 14 it was somewhere later in '97 or perhaps '98. Probably 13 :47 :05 14 Q. Have you ever met any of the other authors of 13 :50 :06 15 '98. 13:47:12 15 the Grodstein paper which is Exhibit No. 4? 13 :50 :1 4 16 Q. This was while you were at Magma, correct? 13 :47:13 16 A. I'm not sure . I may have met some of them, 13 :50 :2 1 17 A. Yes. 13 :47 :21 17 but certainly not in this context, and I have not 13 :50 :2 9 18 Q. So while you were at Magma sometime in '97, 13 :47 :21 18 discussed content of the paper or work at Magma with any 13 :50:3 1 19 sometime in '98, Mr. Grodstein, did he come to the 13:47:25 19 of them. 13 :50 :3 6 20 company? 13:47 :29 20 Q. Now, I believe you testified earlier that It 13 :50 :43 21 A. Yes, he did . 13:47 :30 21 was Kudva who brought to your attention the Sutherland 13 :50 :46 22 Q . Did he have a discussion with you about your 13 :47 :31 22 article and its connection to the work on constant 13:50 :48 23 work? 13 :47:35 23 delay. The Sutherland article is Exhibit No . 2, 13 :50:53 24 A. Yes, he did. 13:47 :35 24 correct? 13 :50 :5 6 25 Q. What can you recall of the discussion that 13 :47 :36 25 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 13:50 :56 102 104

1 you had with Mr. Grodstein in 1997/1998 while you were 13 :47 :38 1 Mischaracterizes the testimony . 13 :50 :58 2 at Magma? 13:47:43 2 A. Yes. 13:51 :03 3 A. We discussed his work, his papers . We talked 13 :47 :45 3 Q . And I don't mean to mischaracterize your 13:51 :04 4 about Sutherland's work in gain and how he added 13 :47:51 4 testimony. It was Kudva who brought that article to 13 :51 :0 7 5 electrical effort to gain, to the idea . So talked about 13 :48:02 5 your attention, correct? 13 :51 :1 0 6 hiring Mr. Grodstein . 13 :48 :08 6 A. Yes. 13 :51 :1 1 7 Q. Was Mr. Grodstein still at DEC or was he at 13 :48 :14 7 Q. And he brought it to your attention in 13 :51 :1 1 8 Intel at that time? 13 :48:18 8 connection with the work on constant delay, correct? 13 :51 :1 3 9 A . He was at DEC . 13 :48 :20 9 MR . EDELMAN, Same objection . 13:51 :1 6 10 Q. 1997? 13 :48:24 10 A. Yes . 13 :51 :17 11 A. I think it was '98. 13 :48 :27 11 Q. Have you ever met with Ivan Sutherland? 13 :51 :1 7 12 Q . But at some point I think he went to work at 13 :48 :40 12 A . Yes, I have . 13:51 :22 13 Compaq, but I guess in 1998 he was still with -- 13 :48 :43 13 Q. When have you met with Mr. Sutherland? 13 :51 :2 2 14 A. Well, DEC was acquired by Compaq, so I don't 13 :48 :46 14 A. Summer of '97 . 13:51 :25 15 know exactly when the acquisition happened, but his job 13 :48 :51 15 Q . What was the occasion for that meeting? 13 :51 :29 16 didn' t change as a fact of the acquisition of DEC. 13 :48 :55 16 A. Mr . Sutherland came to Magma to present his 13 :51 :30 17 That's my understanding . 13:49 :00 17 work on logical effort and electrical effort . 13:51 :36 18 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Grodstein the work 13 :49:01 18 Q. Was this a presentation to the engineers at 13 :51 :4 1 19 that you were doing at Magma on constant delay? 13 :49 :03 19 Magma? 13:51 :4 6 20 A. Yes, we did. 13:49 :06 20 A. Yes, it was . 13:51 :47 21 Q . What did you tell him? 13 :49 :07 21 . Q. Did he hand out any publications, documents? 13:51 :48 22 A. I don't recall exactly what we told him, but 13 :49:08 22 A. He handed out copies of a fairly thick, 13 :51 :53 23 we typically told people about, you know, the constant 13:49:15 23 spiral-bound document of 100-and-some pages, I would 13 :52 :00 24 delay ideas and how they apply to logic synthesis and 13:49 :18 24 estimate, which covered, you know, constant delay and 13 :52 :0 6 25 physical design . 13 :49 :27 25 logical effort in considerable detail . 13 :52 :1 1 103 105

27 (Pages 102 to 105) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Q. Did you draw on any of the ideas in 13 :52:18 1 to gates based on their type without really knowing very 13 :55:54 2 Sutherland's publication that he gave you, this 13 :52:22 2 much about the context of these gates, and this was a 13 :55 :59 3 manuscript? Can we call it a manuscript? 13 :52 :26 3 fairly common practice, and people had a fair amount of 13 :56 :02 4 A. Beyond what's in this paper here? 13 :52:31 4 confidence in that . So that really aligned well with 13 :56:06 5 Q. Yes . 13:52:35 5 this idea . 13:56:10 6 A . I'm not sure about that. 13:52 :36 6 Also, other optimizations such as cloning and 13 :56 :13 7 Q. Did you discuss with Sutherland the work that 13 :52:38 7 buffering and balancing of trees flowed fairly naturally 13 :56:17 8 you were doing on constant delay? 13 :52:45 8 from these models, 13 :56:19 9 A. Briefly: 13:52:49 9 Q. So with regard to why you viewed this as a 13 :56:24 10 Q. Do you recall what you discussed with 13 :52 :51 10 promising idea, your microphone dropped . I think you 13 :56:32 11 Sutherland? 13 :52 :53 11 first said it could simplify the problem ; is that 13 :56 :3 7 12 A. We discussed that we wanted to do logic 13:52:54 12 correct? 13 :56:39 13 synthesis and automation of his work . 13 :52 :58 13 A. Yes. 13 :56:39 14 Q. So you discussed with Sutherland the 13 :53 :03 14 Q . And second, it meshed with your experience in 13 :56 :40 15 application of his work on logical effort to the 13 :53 :05 15 work with designers of high-speed circuits who would 13 :56 :43 16 problems that you were facing in constant delay 13 :53 :09 16 often assume that the delays could be met that they were 13:56:46 17 synthesis? 13 :53 :14 17 designing in it? 13 :56 :5 1 18 A. Yes. 13 :53 :16 18 A. Yes. 13 :56:54 19 Q. Was this a day-long meeting, several days, do 13 :53 :16 19 Q. And then finally, it meshed well with -- I 13 :56:54 20 you recall? 13 :53 :28 20 may be misdescribing this -- the idea of buffering and 13 :56 :59 21 A . I think it was like an afternoon or so. 13 :53 :28 21 other optimizations? 13 :57 :0 3 22 Q. Is that the only occasion when you've had 13 :53 :30 22 A. Well, you know, buffering was done with other 13 :57 :05 23 communications with Mr . Sutherland? 13 :53 :36 23 models, obviously, as well. I just noticed that doing 13 :57 :10 24 A . I've met him later at a party at Magma, but 13 :53 :38 24 buffering with this model gave you the sort of 13 :57 :1 5 25 we didn't have a technical discussion at that time. 13:53:45 25 structures that designers like to favor . 13:57:19 106 108

1 Q . Any other communications with Mr . Sutherland? 13 :53 :47 1 Q. How was that? 13 :57:20 2 A. No . I mean, there was some phone calls to 13 :53 :51 2 A. Because it sort of automatically generates 13 :57 :2 2 3 arrange for his -- for the talk, but that's it . 13 :53 :55 3 symmetric structures, if the circuit is symmetric to 13 :57 :2 8 4 Q. So following your attendance at the November 13 :54:05 4 start out with, which was not really the case with 13 :57:37 5 1995 ICCAD conference where you first encountered 13 :54 :29 5 conventional algorithms . 13 :57 :39 6 Grodstein and Lehman's work on constant delay, did you 13 :54 :35 6 Q. But under the constant delay model, buffer 13 :57 :43 7 take those ideas back and discuss them with engineers at 13 :54 :40 7 insertion becomes a matter of area optimization rather 13 :57 :46 B Synopsys? 13:54 :43 8 than timing optimization? 13:57:5 1 9 A . Yes, I did . 13:54 :43 9 A. Yeah. Well, I wasn't thinking of it in those 13 :57 :52 10 Q. And what was the context for those 13 :54 :44 10 terms right away. 13:57 :55 11 discussions? 13 :54 :46 11 Q. That was a conclusion you arrived at later? 13 :57:5 6 12 A. I don't recall a specific context . 13 :54 :47 12 A. Yes. 13 :57:5 8 13 Q. Was this something you viewed as a promising 13 :54 :51 13 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 21 .) 13 :58 :3 3 14 idea? 13 :54:55 14 Q . Exhibit 21 is entitled "Self-review 13 :58 :35 15 A. Yes. 13:54 :56 15 feedback," and it is an E-mail from Dr . van Ginneken 13 :58 :5 1 16 Q. Why? 13 :54 :56 16 dated February 23rd, 1996 to George Swan, and at that 13 :58 :5 6 17 A. I thought It was a promising idea because it 13 :54 :57 17 point Mr . Swan was your immediate manager; is that 13 :59 :03 18 simplified the process of logic synthesis . It also 13:55 :04 18 correct? 13 :59 :06 19 meshed with some of the experience I had at IBM from 13 :55 :11 19 A. Yes. 13 :59:0 6 20 working with designers of high-speed circuits and the 13 :55 :24 20 Q. Under paragraph 4 you write, "I feel that my 13 :59 :06 21 way they view that design problem . It occurred to me 13:55 :28 21 effectiveness has been hindered by the confidentiality 13 :59 :15 1 22 that a lot of the design techniques that people would 13 :55 :33 22 requirements from IBM . Now these requirements are 13 :59 :18 23 use for white boarding designs meshed fairly naturally 13 :55 :39 23 removed, I can contribute more towards projects which 13:59 :24 24 with the constant delay idea. 13:55 :47 24 address technological improvements ." Do you see that? 13 :59:27 25 I noticed that designers would assign delays 13 :55:49 25 A. Uh-huh. 13:59:29 107 109

28 (Pages 106 to 109) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b934861 6b443 1 Q. Those are your words , correct? 13 :59 :30 1 time, February of 1996? 14:02:3 7 2 A . Yes . 13:59:32 2 A . I wasn't working on that, no, I don't think. 14:02:41 3 Q. What did you mean that your effectiveness had 13 :59 :33 3 But, you know, things may have been discussed, various 14 :02 :47 4 been hindered by the con fidentiality requirement from 13 :59:37 4 ideas were being kicked around . 14:02:52 5 IBM? 13 :59:40 5 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 22 .) 14:02:55 6 A . Well, I don't recall the exact situation, and 13 :59 :40 6 MR. EDELMAN : Before we go forward with more 14 :03:4 7 7 1 don't recall writing this document. What I think I 13 :59:45 7 discussion, I left the issue on the last document go, 14:03 :48 B meant is that this deal with IBM had been in the works 13:59:50 8 but I can't on this one . This has a Magma Bates number, 14 :03:53 9 for some time . I was under obligation to keep IBM 13 :59:56 9 appears to be a Synopsys inte rnal document , and if it's 14 :04:01 10 information confidential, and the joint project kind of 14 :00:04 10 not, please let me know . And I'm not aware that Mr. van 14 :04:03 11 eliminated that requirement as, you know , the joint -- 14 :00 :11 11 Ginneken has signed on to the protective order, and it 14 :04:07 12 the Synopsys-IBM deal allowed Synopsys access to IBM 14 :00:19 12 was Magma itself that has vigorously asserted that the 14 :04:11 13 technology and logic synthesis . 14:00:27 13 witnesses should not be shown information unless there's 14:04:15 14 Q. So up until sometime prior to this point , 14 :00:30 14 been a sign on to the protective order or some other 14 :04:18 15 February 23rd, 1996, you felt somewhat constrained 14 :00: 34 15 basis . And so I would object to questioning on this 14 :04:21 a 16 because of your confidentiali ty obligations to IBM to 14 :00:38 16 un til we work that out, 14:04:25 17 share fully your knowledge and experience in the field ; 14 :00:42 17 MR . BULCHIS : We would, of course , keep this 14 :04:26 18 is that correct? 14 :00:45 18 document, if you request, confidential under Dr. van 14 :04:28 19 A, Yes . 14:00:47 19 Ginneken's obligation under a Synopsys employment 14 :04:31 1 20 Q. Under 5 you write , "I want to approach the 14 :00:47 20 agreement. 14 :04:34 21 delay optimization problem from a broader perspective , 14 :00:56 21 MR . RILEY : This is a Magma document. Came 14 :04:34 22 to be able to make more progress. I think that from a 14 :00:59 22 from his personnel files, his personal files. Says 14:04:36 23 broader perspective, especially after the IBM deal, I 14 :01:04 23 Magma at the bottom . 14:04:42 24 will be able to contribute more to the QOR goals ." 14:01:09 24 MR. EDELMAN: Okay. But this is clearly 14 :04:43 25 First of all, what does QOR mean here? 14 :01 :15 25 relating, I assume you agree, to internal work at 14 :04:46 110 112 li 1 A . Its an acronym . It stands for quali ty of 14 :01:18 1 Synopsys. 14 :04 :48 2 results. Its usually meant to be optimization results, 14:01 :20 2 MR . RILEY: It appears to. 14 :04:49 3 In particular timing opti mization results. 14 :01 : 27 3 MR . EDELMAN: Yes . 14:04 :5 0 4 Q. For a particular design ? 14 :01:30 4 MR . RILEY: You' re not going to let me 14 :04:50 5 A . For a par ticular design, yes. 14 :01 :31 5 question him about it? 14 :04;52 6 Q. What were you referring to here by 14 :01 :33 6 - MR. EDELMAN: Well, what I can't let happen 14:04:53 7 approaching the delay optimization problem from a 14 :01 :37 7 is Mr . van Ginneken proceed to be questioned on these 14 :04:5 6 8 broader perspective? 14:01:39 8 types of documents when Magma has taken the position 14 :04:59 9 A . Pm not really sure exactly what I was 14:01 :43 9 that I cannot, at my leisure, question Mr . van Ginneken 14 :05 :01 10 thInking of there . 14 :01 :48 10 on documentation as well under the dispute between the 14 :05:04 11 Q. Was that a reference to t rying to use the 14 :01 :49 11 parties over the protective order . 14 :05:07 12 constant delay models discussed in Grodstein and Lehman ? 14 :01 :55 12 MR . RILEY : Well, you can certainly question 14 :05:08 13 A. Possibly, but it could also have Included 14 :02:00 13 him about this. This was in his fi le. 14:05:10 14 other thoughts . 14:02 :04 14 MR . EDELMAN : I'm not talking about this 14 :05:12 15 Q. Because at that point you were working on 14 :02 :05 15 document. Tm talking about a mo re global question. 14:05:13 16 other approaches - 14:02:07 16 Magma has vigorously, vigoro usly asserted that there was 14 :05 :1 7 17 A. I was working on rewiring to improve QOR 14:02 :10 17 a problem with showing any third party, including Mr. 14 :05 :20 18 results. 14 :02 : 18 18 van Ginneken, documents marked "attorn eys and 14:05 :22 19 Q. And were you also working on other app roaches 14 :02:19 19 consultants only" subject to veto rights of the other 14 :05 :24 20 to logic synthesis that would be Iterative in nature? 14 :02 : 23 20 party and has insisted on having veto right . So I need 14 :05 :2 6 21 MR . EDELMAN : Objection , vague and ambiguous . 14 :02:28 21 to understand the global position on what Magma is 14 :05 :29 22 A. That were Iterative in nature? 14 :02:30 22 taking on this. 14 :05 :32 23 Q. Yes. 14 :02 :32 23 MR. RILEY : We're going to continue the 14 :05:33 24 A. I was working on that? 14 :02:33 24 question . 14 :05:3 4 25 Q. I 'm asking the question , were you at that 14 :02 :35 25 MR . EDELMAN : Well, then I object to any 14:05:34 111 113

29 (Pages 110 to 113) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1 f6fba ef-e2c4 -46bd-9067-b9348616b443 14 :07:3 1 1 questioning on this document . This Is a violation of 14:05 :36 1 conjunctive and that they were going to bring it to the . So I just wanted you to know 14 :07 :35 2 the protective order, in my opinion, 14 :05;38 2 magistrate's attention 3 MR . RILEY : There's not a protective order in 14 :05 :39 3 the status of the record, it was raised yesterday . 14:07 :3 8 4 the case. 14:05 :42 4 MR . RILEY : I'm sorry if we're taking what 14 :07 :3 9 :07 :4 2 5 MR . EDELMAN : You're saying that Magma does 14 :05:42 5 you view as inconsistent positions . I just think its 14 6 not consider itself bound by the portions of the 14:05 :43 6 very simple for this document that the witness clearly 14:07 :45 7 protective order the parties have agreed to? 14 :05 :46 7 wrote it, and when there's no dispute about whether a 14 :07 :4 7 8 MR. RILEY : Yes . We'll keep the documents 14 :05 :48 8 witness wrote a document, there shouldn't be a problem 14 :07:50 . 14:07 :53 9 confidential, This is a document that was in Mr . van 14:05 :49 9 from our side or your side of showing it to the witness : But Magma has said there is a 14 :07 :5 6 10 Ginneken's file . It wasn't produced by Synopsys . 14 :05 :52 10 MR . EDELMAN 11 MR. EDELMAN: You're showing this witness 14:05 :54 11 problem . That's why the parties can't agree on a 14:07 :58 12 Synopsys internal confidential information . How it 14 :05 :57 12 protective order. 14 :08 :00 :08 1 13 ended up In Magma internal personnel files is a very 14:06 :00 13 MR. RILEY : No. I think it's only when an 14 :0 14 interesting question we can all address later, but 14 :06 :05 14 there's an issue about whether a witness is the author 14 :08 :0 3 15 that's not relevant who produced it . What's relevant is 14 :06:07 15 of the document . Again, very respectfully, our concern 14 :08 :07 16 that Synopsys internal relevant confidential information 14 :06 :10 16 is, for example, showing third-party source code and you 14 :08 :1 0 14:08 :1 5 17 cannot be shown to this third-party witness without a 14:06 :12 17 don't have a good faith basis to know whether that 18 protective order or the parties can here work out what 14 :06 :15 18 person wrote the source code. I think we would all 14:08 :18 19 the provision should be to handle issues like this . 14 :06 :18 19 share a concern if we showed Synopsys source code to 14 :08 :2 0 14 :08:24 20 MR . RILEY : He wrote this document. There's 14:06 :21 20 people just because we had a hunch that they may have 7 21 no question about It. 14 :06 :22 21 authored it, I think that's the issue, but on documents 14:08 :2 22 Q. Dr . van Ginneken, did you write this exhibit? 14:06 :24 22 like this where it is clear that he wrote it, I mean, 14 :08 :29 23 MR . EDELMAN ., Excuse me . I would object to 14 :06:26 23 this is his own writing . 14:08 :3 3 24 Mr. van Ginneken reviewing the document. 14:06 :28 24 MR . EDELMAN : But the problem we have is -- 14 :08 :34 25 Q. Did you write this document? 14 :06 :29 25 and again, it's to some extent related to this document, 14 :08 :36 114 116

can be a more general question because I'm 14 :08 :39 1 A. I can't say that without reviewing -- 14 :06 :32 1 but it concerned of the other documents that will be introduced 14 :08 :41 2 Q . You can answer the question . 14 :06 :33 2 3 MR. BULCHIS : You may answer the question. 14 :06 :34 3 in this deposition or others , and that Is, that 14:08 :44 4 MR. EDELMAN : I will consider Mr . van 14 :06 :35 4 regardless of who wrote it or whether Mr , van Ginneken 14 :08 :46 5 Glnneken reviewing this document to be a viola tion of 14 :06 :37 5 wrote it, what he authored , and may have forgotten 14:08 :48 6 the protective order, and we will reserve any right to 14 : 06 :40 6 because It was several years ago , may contain 14 :08 :50 :08 :54 7 seek sanctions, Including contempt, against any attempt 14 :06 :40 7 con fidential information contributed to by others at 14 fidential 14 :08:57 8 to ask questions on Synopsys confi denti al Information 14 :06 :41 8 Synopsys, th at it contain Synopsys con And that as we've stated repeatedly during 14 :08 :59 9 until we get this issue resolved . Th is is an issue th at 14 : 06 :44 9 information. 10 Magma raised that Magma has been ve ry vigorous about, 14:06 :46 10 the meet and confer we'd be willing to consider a 14:09 :05 11 and I' m not about to give up my client' s rights simply 14 :06 :49 11 proposal whereby witnesses could see documents that they 14 :09 :07 12 because you decide unilaterally you can do what you 14 :06 :53 12 authored, provided that the witness sign on to the 14 :09 :10 2 13 objected to us doing . 14 :06 :56 13 p rotective order . 14 :09:1 14 MR . RILEY: I'm not deciding anything . 14:06 :57 14 If here Mr . van Ginneken's counsel is taking 14 :09 :15 ve 14:09 :17 15 You' re being unre asonable . This is a document that he 14 : 06 :58 15 the position that he will not sign under th e protecti 14 :09 :1 9 i 16 authored . If there's any question about whether he 14:07:01 16 order, we have no protection at this point . 14 :09 :22 17 authored It or not, I won't ask him the question. 14:07 :03 17 MR. BULCHIS : Well, you do have . 18 MR . EDELMAN : I want to make this dear for 14 :07:05 18 MR . EDELMAN : I understand Mr . van Ginneken ' s 14 :09 :23 19 the record. 14:07 :07 19 counsel has taken the positi on that there are 14 :09:25 . 14 :09 :27 20 MR . GRAHAM : Let me just state, because I was 14:07:09 20 confidentiality obligations that he has to Synopsys 21 there yesterday when I suggested to Chris Catalano and 14 :07:11 21 From Synopsys's point of view we have already witnessed 14 :09 :30 22 Luann, that It be in the disjunctive on the protective 14 :07 :14 22 what we view Mr. van Ginneken 's feels of his 14 :09 :32 23 order, that either he sign on the protective order or it 14:07 :19 23 confidentiality obligati ons to Synopsys . We need a 14:09 :34 24 appear that he wrote It or In good faith believed . And 14 :07:22 24 protective order, and if we don' t have a protective 14 :09 :36 25 the response back from them was that it had to be In the 14 :07:28 2 5 order In th e case and Mr. van Ginneken Is not -- has 14 :09 :40 11 5 117

30 (Pages 114 to 117) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 stated that he Is not willing to sign on a protective 14 :09:43 1 MR. BULCHIS: Well, let's take the first 14 :11:41 2 order or comply with the provisions of a protective 14 :09:45 2 paragraph . 14:11:43 3 order, we have a real problem, 14 :09:48 3 MR . EDELMAN : I'm not going to discuss on the 14 :11 :43 4 MR. BULCHIS: I would like to ask for the 14 :09 :50 4 record documents that are attorneys and consultants 14:11 :45 5 witness's benefit, what in here do you possibly consider 14 :09 :52 5 only. I'm just not going to do it -- that's exactly the 14 :11 :47 6 to be confidential in view of all the publications, 14 :09:55 6 point -- read off to the witness documents that contain 14 :11:50 7 counsel? 14:09 :57 7 Synopsys confidential information . This probably would, 14 :11 :5 3 8 MR . EDELMAN : I'm not about to go through the 14 :09 :59 8 in my view, be very easily solved if Mr. van Ginneken 14 :11 :5 7 9 detail of the documents because that raises exactly the 14 :10:01 9 would agree that he's going to sign on to the protective 14:11 :59 10 danger I am trying to avoid . 14:10 :03 10 order, which is what any third-party witness should do, 14 :12 :02 11 MR, BULCHIS : By paragraph number or 14 :10:05 11 and is what Magistrate Zimmerman explicitly indicated at 14 :12 :06 12 something . 14 :10 :06 12 our conference call should be done in this case to 14 :12 :08 13 MR, EDELMAN : I'm willing to do that off the 14:10:07 13 resolve all of these problems . Third-party witnesses 14 :12:1 1 14 record, not in front of the witness. 14:10:09 14 should sign on to the protective order . It's what it's 14 :12:13 15 MR . RILEY : There is nothing conceivably that 14 :10:10 15 for. If you'll agree to do that, then I'm fine . 14:12 :17 16 is confidential in this document at all . 14 :10 ;12 16 MR . BULCHIS: No, absolutely not . 14:12 :20 17 MR. EDELMAN : Then why did you mark it 14 :10 :14 17 Particularly given that your designation of this entire 14 :12 :2 1 18 attorneys and consultants only? Are you saying you 14 :10 :16 18 transcript as confidential, which is clearly not in good 14 :12 :2 5 19 violated the protective order terms or are you saying 14 :10 :18 19 faith, we can't agree to be bound by any protective 14 :12 :2 8 20 you had a legitimate basis to mark it? 14 :10 :21 20 order . 14:12 :30 21 MR . RILEY : No . We marked it out of an 14:10 :22 21 MR . EDELMAN: Well, then I can't permit any 14 :12 :3 1 22 abundance of caution because it is a reference to 14;10:25 22 questioning to go forward that relies upon any 14:12 :33 23 something he did while he was at Synopsys . 14:10:27 23 information that Synopsys considers confidential . 14 :12:3 6 24 MR . EDELMAN : Did Magma have a basis to mark 14 :10 :29 24 MR . RILEY: And you consider, just to be 14 :12 :3 8 25 this as attorneys and consultants only or not? 14 :10 :31 25 clear, you consider this record of what this man wrote 14 :12 :39 118 120

1 MR . RILEY: Our sole basis was because It was 14:10 :34 1 as his own personal objectives as a Synopsys employee to 14:12 :4 3 2 a reference to a personnel file of this employee while 14 :10:36 2 contain Synopsys confidential information even though it 14 :12:4 9 3 he was at Synopsys . If you'll agree to waive it we'll 14 :10 :39 3 was written back in April of 1996? 14:12 :52 4 take the caption off. 14:10 :42 4 MR . EDELMAN : Yes. And that's why Magma 14 :12 :54 5 MR . EDELMAN : I can't agree until we reach an 14 :10 :44 5 marked it, because Magma thought that as well . 14 :12 :55 6 understanding . If were going to talk off the record on 14:10 :46 6 MR. RILEY: No . We marked It out of an 14 :12:5 9 7 this, I've been trying to work out a deal on this for 14 :10 :49 7 abundance of caution so that you couldn't accuse us of 14 :13 :0 1 8 six months, and Magma has taken the position that there 14 :10 :52 8 disclosing something that you consider to be 14 ;13 :04 9 will be no deal and every witness must sign, and It 14 :10 :55 9 confidential, 14 :13:06 10 doesn't matter what the exceptions are, and my attempts 14 :10 :58 10 MR . EDELMAN ; So Magma over designated a 14 :13 :0 6 11 to work out a deal on this have been rebuffed for six 14 :11 :00 11 document even though It had no basis for doing so, 14 :13 :08 12 months now, and I can't sit here and let Synopsys 14 :11 :03 12 MR . RILEY : No. Please. 14:13:11 . 13 confidential documents be asked about without an 14 :11:06 13 MR . EDELMAN : You have to have a good faith 14 :13 :11 14 understanding-from Mr_-van . Ginneken and from Magma that 14:11 :08 14 basis. You can't have a good faith basis that you think 14 :13:1 2 15 Mr . van Glnneken Is bound to the protective order. 14:11 :11 15 the other party is going to complain . That's not a good 14:13 :1 5 16 MR . RILEY: Well, we'll go off the record . 14:11 :14 16 faith basis. 14:13 :18 17 MR, BULCHIS : Could I suggest that maybe 14 :11 :16 17 MR. RILEY : If it were our document we 14 :13:18 18 counsel could Identify which paragraph he feels Is 14 :11 :18 18 wouldn't have marked it because we didn't know we marked 14 :13 :21 19 confidential? We can then redact the document, show It 14 :11 :21 19 it. The protective order allows people to mark out of 14 :13 :23 20 to the witness to the extent of him having Identify he 14 :11 :25 20 an abundance of caution . I'm asking you now on the 14:13 :2 6 21 wrote It and then go from there . 14 :11 :29 21 record, Is there information In here that you consider 14 :13:2 9 22 MR . EDELMAN' Are we off or on? 14 :11:31 22 confidential - attorneys eyes only? 14 :13:32 23 MR . RILEY: We're on the record . 14:11 :32 23 MR. EDELMAN : Yes, there is. 14 :13 :3 3 24 MR. EDELMAN : Well, I don't even know how 1 14 :11:34 24 MR. RILEY : What is ft? 14:13:35 25 could separate this stuff Into confidential or not . 14:11 :38 25 MR . EDELMAN : Tm not going to tell you on 14 :13 :36 119 12 1

31 (Pages 118 to 121 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 the record . If you want to go off the record and we can 14 :13:38 1 MR . RILEY : We had an opportunity off the 14 :27 :53 2 go line by line, I'm happy to do that, but I'm not going 14 :13:41 2 record to talk with Dr. van Ginneken's counsel about 14:27:54 3 to let any questioning on this document go forward or 14 :13 :43 3 Exhibit No . 22, which is Magma 517234 through Magma 14 :27 :58 4 any other documents containing Synopsys information or 14 :13 :45 4 517235 . This document was found In the same file that 14 :28 :04 5 documents designated under the protective order until we 14 :13 :47 5 contained the redrafts of the 1998 agreement which we 14 :28 :1 1 6 get an agreement from Mr. van Ginneken that he's bound 14:13 :50 6 produced, we produced this as well . Counsel for 14 :28 :1 8 7 to the protective order . My client deserves that . 14 :13:53 7 Synopsys has indicated that Synopsys believes that this 14 :28 :20 8 MR. RILEY : Your client has over designated 14:13 :57 8 does contain confidential - attorneys eyes only 14 :28 :2 5 9 in violation of -- you have over designated in violation 14 :13 :59 9 information . Is that correct? 14 :28:28 10 of the rule. 14:14 :04 10 MR . EDELMAN : Yes . 14:28 :30 11 MR. EDELMAN : Me personally? 14 :14 :05 11 MR, RILEY : So it's been marked confidential 14 :28 :32 12 MR. RILEY : You have designated this entire 14 :14 :06 12 attorneys and consultants only. Counsel for Dr. van 14:28 :34 13 transcript, 14 :14 :07 13 Ginneken has agreed that he and Dr . van Ginneken will -- 14 :28 :39 14 MR . EDELMAN : Tell my staff that . 14 :14:08 14 he and Dr . van Ginneken will treat this as confidential 14 :28 :44 15 MR . RILEY : You have designated this entire 14 :14:09 15 as much as they have the exhibits that are attached to 14 :28 :47 16 transcript confidential, 14:14 :10 16 his declaration, which are filed under seal . Can we 14 :28:5 5 17 MR . EDELMAN : The protective order says 14 :14 :12 17 proceed with that agreement? 14:28 :59 18 entire deposition transcripts can be designated, which 14:14 :14 18 MR . EDELMAN : We can proceed if Mr. van 14 :29 :00 19 was a point negotiated between the parties . If you were 14 :14 :17 19 Ginneken's counsel represents that Mr . van Glnneken will 14 :29 :01 20 on the calls you would know that . You were .not on the 14 :14 :18 20 be bound by the terms of the protective order. 14 :29 :0 5 21 calls, I was . That's why the provision appears in the 14 :14 :20 21 MR . BULCHIS : In view of Synopsys's 14 :29 :09 22 protective order that way, because we negotiated that 14:14 :22 22 publication of the declaration, or filing it in a manner 14 :29:1 1 23 point. 14 :14 :24 23 knowing it would be published and the damage it has done 14:29 :1 6 24 MR . RILEY: Have you read local rules of 14 :14:29 24 to my client, and its designation of this entire 14 :29:19 25 Judge Zimmerman? 14 :14 :30 25 transcript as confidential, which I don't view as a good 14 :29 :22 122 124

1 MR . EDELMAN : I've read a lot of things . 14 :14 :32 1 faith designation, we cannot be bound, agree to be bound 14 :29 :26 2 MR . RILEY: Have you read his local rules? 14 :14 :34 2 by the protective order. Now, as I understand there is 14 :29 :29 3 MR . EDELMAN : Yes, I've read his local rules. 14 :14 :35 3 no protective order . There's an agreement of counsel 14:29 :32 4- 4 MR . RILEY: And you've read what he says 14:14 :37 4 they will treat documents as confidential. 14:29:3 4 5 about over designation? 14 :14 :38 5 We are agreeable that we will treat this 14:29:3 6 6 MR . EDELMAN : Are you saying that that 14 :14:39 6 document, Exhibit 22, as confidential as well as the 14 :29 :3 9 7 matters in the face of an agreement between the parties 14 :14:40 7 testimony concerning that, but we will not agree to 14 :29 :42 8 on how to treat deposition transcripts? 14:14 :42 8 allow Synopsys to designate this entire transcript as 14:29 :45 } 9 MR . RILEY : Judge Zimmerman's local rules, I 14 :14 :44 9 confidential . 14 :29:4 8 10 think, prevail . 14 :14 :46 10 MR . EDELMAN : That's a completely different 14:29 :49 11 MR . EDELMAN : The parties can't agree 14 :14:47 11 question . The question of whether or not questions 14 :29 :51 12 otherwise . Is that your position? 14 :14 :49 12 should be permitted on Synopsys confidential information 14 :29 :53 13 MR . RILEY : I think Judge Zimmerman -- the 14 :14:50 13 is a question that is easily resolved by any judge 14 :29 :56 14 order has not been entered yet. In the absence of that 14 :14 :51 14 throughout the land who will say that a third-party 14 :29 :59 15 I think we have to abide by the rules . 14:14 :54 15 witness who is shown confidential information needs to 14 :30 :0 1 16 MR . EDELMAN : The parties have an agreement, 14 :14 :56 16 sign on to the protective order . It is correct that 14 :30 :0 5 17 which I expect the parties to comply with . 14:14 :57 17 because of one small dispute over deposition procedure 14 :30 :08 18 MR . RILEY : Let's take a break because you're 14 :15 :01 18 the court has not yet signed a protective order. It is 14 :30 :10 19 being entirely unreasonable . Let's take a break and 14 :15 :03 19 also correct that the parties have, for months now, 14 :30 :1 3 20 we'll talk, okay? 14 :15 :04 20 proceeded in this case with signatures or with the 14:30 :1 6 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 14 :15 :05 21 assumption that the protective order governs 14 :30:2 0 22 time now is approximately 2 :14 p.m . 14 :15 :07 22 confidential information in this case . That is how we 14:30 :23 23 (Recess .) 14 :27:38 23 want to proceed . 14:30:2 6 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 14 :27 :44 24 Synopsys is entitled to rely on the 14 :30 :27 25 The time now Is approximately 2 :27 p.m. 14 :27 :46 25 protections of an order that the parties have nego tiated 14:30:29 123 125

32 (Pages 122 to 125) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 - 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 at great, great length, particularly where this 14 :30 :31 1 sentence is -- that idea is disclosed in Grodste€n, 14:34 :4 7 2 deposition is Involved . All we ask is that Mr . van 14 :30:36 2 isn't it? 14 :34:5 3 3 Glnneken sign on to the protective order like any other 14 :30:39 3 A. Yes. 14:34:55 4 third party witness would do . 14:30 :42 4 Q . "It promises to radically simplify the design 14 :34 :5 5 5 MR . BULCHIS : I think my position is clear . 14:30 :46 5 process from behavioral synthesis down to physical 14 :35 :00 6 MR . RILEY : So in light of -- I take it you 14 :30 :50 6 design . It is probably more of a philosophy than an 14 :35 :03 7 object to any questions based on Exhibit 22 and would 14 :30 :52 7 algorithm . Using this philosophy many common 14 :35 :08 8 seek sanctions against me, personal, and probably prison 14 :30 :56 8 optimization algorithms, such as mapping, retiming, 14:35:1 2 9 or something like that? 14 :30 :59 9 behavioral synthesis, delay and amplification, area 14 :35:16 10 MR. EDELMAN : Maybe not prison, 14 :31 :01 Y 10 optimization, placement can be reformulated in a much 14 :35 :2 1 11 MR. RILEY : So you won't permit any 14 :31 :03 11 simpler form ." 14 :35 :25 12 questioning on Exhibit 22? 14 :31 :04 12 Now, Grodstein had applied the philosophy to 14 :35 :27 j 13 MR . EDELMAN : No . Nor any document that 14 :31 :07 13 mapping ; is that correct? 14 :35 :31 14 contains Synopsys confidential information . 14 :31 :09 14 A. Yes, that is correct. 14:35 :3 1 15 MR . GRAHAM : Just so the record is clear, 14 :31 :18 1S Q . Now, of this time, which is April 25th, had 14 :35 :32 16 George, I might add that we're not going to be done 14 :31 :20 16 you actually applied constant delay synthesis to these 14 :35 :37 17 today or tomorrow because of the discussions the parties 14 :31 :22 17 other problems such as retiming, behavioral synthesis, 14 :35 :4 1 18 have had before that has indicated that he would also 14 :31:24 18 delay and amplification, area optimization and 14 :35:4 4 19 produce Dr, van Ginneken later because we have issues 14 :31 :27 19 placement? 14 :35 :47 20 regarding additional documents. So this is an issue 14 :31 :29 20 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 14:35 :4 9 21 which we can continue to discuss and try to resolve, so 14 :31 :31 21 A. Conceptually you mean? 14:35 :50 22 there will be additional opportunity should the need 14 :31 :35 22 Q. Yes . Had you applied It conceptually? 14 :35 :52 23 arise and the circumstances be appropriate, 14 :31:38 23 A. Yes. 14:35 :5 5 24 MR . RILEY : I'd like to have marked as the 14 :32 :01 24 Q. So you were taking the insights in 14 :35 :5 6 25 next exhibit, this is -- Exhibit 23 is the invention 14 :32 :02 25 Grodstein's article and conceptually applying them to 14 :36 :00 126 128

1 disclosure which was attached as Exhibit 2 to your 14 :32:06 1 other areas, correct? 14 :36 :03 2 declaration . 14 :32 :12 2 A. That's right . 14:36 :05 3 (Marked Deposit€on Exhibit 23 .) 14 :32 :29 3 Q . But you couldn't -- you hadn't arrived at an 14:36 :05 4 MR . EDELMAN : Hold on before asking the 14 :32:30 4 actual technique that you could describe as an 14 :36:0 9 5 questions. Let me review. I believe this document has 14 :32 :31 5. invention, had you? 14:36:1 0 6 been publicly filed so you can go ahead . 14 :33 :12 6 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 14 :36 :11 7 Q. Exhibit 23 is entitled "Constant Delay 14 :33 :16 7 Calls for legal conclusion on the term "invention ." 14:36 :1 2 8 Synthesis," It is an Invention disclosure, Is that 14 :33:20 8 A. That, yeah, that's hard to say, you know. It 14 :36 :1 5 9 correct, Dr . van Ginneken? 14:33 :26 9 certainly wasn't complete. 14 :36 :23 10 A. Yes. 14:33 :27 10 Q. But you had some idea of the directions you 14 :36 :2 6 11 Q. Where in this invention disclosure agreement 14 :33 :27 11 wanted to head? 14 :36:2 9 12 do you describe the invention that you had conceived? 14 :33:40 12 A. Yes. 14:36 :30 13 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 14 :33 :47 13 Q . And then it says, "Future disclosure : I`m 14 :36:30 14 A. Well, it's a very incomplete description . 14:33:50 14 planning to give an oral presentation to the ICCAD '96 14 :36 :35 15 Essentially the description does not accomplish much 14 :34 :10 15 in Santa Cara regarding this idea," correct? 14 :36 :39 16 more than constant delay synthesis. It says Its a 14:34:15 16 A. Yes. 14 :36:4 2 17 different paradigm, but as far as a description there's 14 :34 :19 17 Q. And that was the "Driving on the Left-hand 14 :36 :42 18 not a lot there . 14 :34 :27 18 Side" presentation we discussed earlier? 14 :36 :44 19 Q. So it doesn't actually describe the 14:34 :28 19 A. Yes. 14:36 :48 20 invention, but it describes the philosophy of constant 14 :34 :30 20 Q. "Government contract: No . Joint venture : 14:36:4 8 21 -- 14 :34:34 21 Yes ." The answer yes to joint venture is a reference to 14 :36 :53 22 A. Yes. 14:34 :34 22 what, Dr. van Ginneken? 14 :36:5 9 23 Q . Let's go through that . It says, "Constant 14:34:34 23 A . To the joint venture with IBM. 14 :37 :01 24 delay synthesis is an entirely different paradigm for 14 :34 :38 24 Q. And you answered yes because you believed 14 :37:03 25 delay optimization in logic synthesis." And that 14:34 :42 25 that the discovery or invention, the idea that you're 14 :37 :0 5 127 129

33 (Pages 126 to 129) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b934861 6b443 I. laying out here, was subject to the joint venture? 14 :37 :08 1 on the idea of constant delay? 14 :39:53 2 A. Yes. 14 :37 :12 2 A. Yes. 14:39:55 3 Q . "Outside disclosure: Yes." What was the 14 :37:13 3 Q. Who assigned him to do that? 14 :39:56 4 outside disclosure? 14 :37 :18 4 A. I believe Leon Stok assigned him to do that. 14 :39:58 5 A. That was disclosure to IBM . 14:37 :19 5 Q. And was it in that conversation following 14 :40:01 6 Q . And then It states, 'The idea has extensively 14 :37 :23 6 March 5th that he brought to your attention the 14 :40:03 7 discussed with IBMers involved in the Synopsys-IBM deal . 14 :37 :27 7 connection between the work of Sutherland on logical 14 :40:07 8 The Idea was first disclosed to IBM on March 5th . I 14 :37 :32 8 effort and the idea of how to determine the initial 14 :40:13 9 have visited IBM last week, April 16th ." 14 :37 :39 9 intended delay? 14:40 :15 10 I'd like to ask you first about the idea that 14 :37 :42 10 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 14 :40 :16 11 when you first discussed it with IBM on March 5th, can 14 :37 :45 11 Mischaracterizes the testimony. 14 :40 :1 7 12 you describe how that took place? 14 :37 :48 12 A. We had several conversations by phone, and 1 14:40 :19 13 A . Well, there was a trip to IBM in Yorktown, 14 :37:50 13 do not remember exactly at what point he brought up 14:40 :24 14 and we met several people at IBM . There were round - 14 :37:55 14 Sutherland . I don't believe it was the first 14 :40:31 15 table discussions and presentations by myself and 14 :38 :02 15 conversation, but one soon thereafter. 14:40 :34 16 various other people, This was the first time I met 14 :38 :07 16 Q . Did he send you a copy of Sutherland's paper? 14 :40 :37 17 Prabhakar Kudva in person . 14 :38:12 17 A . Yes. He faxed me a copy. 14 :40 :40 i8 Q . And did you have discussions with Mr. Kudva 14 :38 :17 18 Q. And then did you have follow-up discussions 14:40 :42 19 at that time about your constant delay ideas? 14 :38 :20 19 with Mr. Kudva after he sent you the paper? 14 :40 :44 20 A . Yes. 14 :38:23 20 A. Yes, we did. 14 :40 :47 21 Q . Was that the time when he brought to your 14 :38 :23 21 Q. And then you write, "I have visited IBM last 14 :40 :48 22 attention the connection between constant delay and 14 :38 :26 22 week, April 16th, and I talked to the logic synthesis 14 :40 :55 23 gain-based synthesis? 14 :38 :31 23 researchers there who are involved in the NGSS project." 14 :41 :00 24 MR . EDELMAN : Objection . Mischaracterizes 14:38 :32 24 Now, focusing on that meeting, that was at IBM in New 14 :41 :04 25 his testimony . Vague and ambiguous . 14 :38 :34 2 5 York? 14 :41 :08 130 132

1 A. I believe he brought it to my attention 14 :38 :36 1 A . Yes . 14 :41 :09 2 before this meeting . 14 :38 :39 2 Q . In Yorktown? 14 :41 :09 3 Q . Before March 5th? 14:38 :40 3 A . Yes . 14 :41 :1 0 4 A. No. Oh, we're talking about March 5th or 14 :38 :41 4 Q . Who was present for the meetings on April 14 :41 :11 5 April 16th? 14 :38 :46 5 16th, 1996 ? 14 :41 :1 3 6 Q. I'm sorry, I may have misspoke . The first 14 :38 :46 6 A . I'm a little less clear on who all were 14 :41 :15 7 meeting with IBM where you discussed it was March 5. 14 :38 :50 7 present there , but there were several people from 14 :41 :20 8 A. Yes, but Prabhakar Kudva was not present 14:38 :53 8 Synopsys, including Robert Damiano , myself, Navendra 14 :41 :22 9 there and I did not know him at the time . 14 :38 :56 9 Shenoy, Adel Khouja . Th ose are the ones I remember. 14 :41 :28 10 Q. Who was present at the mee ti ng on March 5th? 14 :38 :58 10 And from IBM there were several people, some of them not 14 :41 :35 11 A . From IBM, Leon Stok and Nathaniel Hleter . 14:39 :01 11 really Involved with NGSS, but however involved, you 14 :41 :43 12 From Synopsys, I think myself, Robert Damiano, Tony Ma, 14 :39 :06 12 know, people who work in logic synthesis, logic 14 :41 :45 13 Richard Riddell, Narendra Shenoy and maybe Mahesh Iyer . 14 :39 :13 13 synthesis expe rts. Some of the people I re member are 14 :41 :49 14 Q. And where did the meeting take place? 14 :39 :23 14 Prabhakar Kudva, Leon Stok, Louise Trevillyan, Dan 14 :41 :53 15 A . At Synopsys . The March 5th meeting was at 14 :39 .25 15 Brand , D avid Kung, and there may have been others. 14 :41 :56 16 Synopsys. 14 :39 :28 16 Q. Did you make a presentation? 14 :42 :10 17 Q. Did you give a presentati on? 14 :39 :29 17 A. I don 't recall If I made a presentation at 14 :42 :12 18 A . Yes, I did . 14 :39:30 18 this meeting . I made a presentation certainly at a 14 :42 :17 19 Q. Was this a slide presentation ? 14 :39 :30 19 later meeting. I may have had made a presentation at 14 :42 :21 20 A . Yes, It was . 14 :39 :32 20 this meeti ng as well. 14 :42 :23 21 Q. After March 5th when did you first talk to 14 :39 :33 21 Q . In Yorktown ? 14:42 :24 22 Mr. Kudva about this Idea? 14 :39 :42 22 A. Yes . 14 :42 :26 23 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 14 :39 :44 23 Q. Did you see Professor Otten on this trip? 14 :42 :27 24 A . Perhaps a week later on the telephone . 14 :39 :45 24 A. Yes , I did. 14:42:3 2 25 Q. Was he assigned to work with you by someone 14 :39 :49 2 5 Q . When did you see him? 14 :42 :32 131 133

34 (Pages 130 to 133) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 I A. I met him one evening at Leon Stok's house . 14:42:33 1 level up . Somewhere in this chain. 14:45:20 9 2 Q. And was it at that meeting that he invited 14 :42 :39 2 Q. And then you say, "A major problem is that 14 :45 :22 3 you to submit a paper for the ICCAD conference? 14:42 :43 3 much of the basic idea can be found in two papers 14 :45 :29 4 A. Yes, It was. 14:42 :47 4 published in the ICCAD of 1995," and that's a reference 14 :45 :3 2 5 Q. Was Mr . Stok present for that conversation? 14 :42:48 5 to the Grodstein and Lehman papers, correct? 14 :45:3 6 6 A. Yes, it was . 14:42 :50 6 A. Yes, that's correct. 14:45 :40 7 Q. Did you discuss your ideas about constant 14 :42 :51 7 Q . "However, the scope of application of 14 :45 :4 1 8 delay with Professor Otten at that time? 14 :42:56 8 constant delay reaches far and wide, and we could patent 14 :45:46 9 A. To some extent, at least to give a vague idea 14 :42:59 9 many applications . It is important that Synopsys 14 :45:49 10 of what the paper would be about. 14:43:04 10 acquires patent protection in this area, even though 14 :45:54 11 Q. So was it the case that you were having a 14 :43 :06 11 some prior art exists." 14 :45 :5 7 12 discussion about constant delay with Professor Otten, 14 :43 :09 12 At this point did you have in mind any 14 :45 :59 13 and he invited you to submit a paper or did he simply 14 :43 :11_ 13 specific application of constant delay that could be 14 :46 :02 14 invite you to submit a paper on anything that you wanted 14 :43 :15 14 patented? 14 :46 :05 15 to? 14 :43 :17 15 A. I think that would be the things that are 14 :46 :08 16 A. I think the invitation came first. 14 :43 :18 16 listed earlier such as retiming, behavioral synthesis, 14 :46 :1 0 17 Q. And then you discussed the idea? 14 :43 :20 17 delay optimization . 14 :46 :1 4 18 A. Yes. 14 :43 :23 18 Q. So those are candidates for -- 14 :46 :18 19 Q. And did Mr. Stok participate in that 14 :43:23 19 A. Those are candidates, yes . 14 :46:21 20 discussion? 14 :43 :26 20 Q. But as to a developed invention for any of 14 :46 :2 2 21 A. He was, present but he did not participate in 14 :43 :27 21 those candidates, you hadn't developed an invention for 14 :46 :25 22 the discussion . 14 :43 :29 22 those candidates? 14 :46:29 23 Q. Then there's a sentence that says, 'The idea 14:43 :30 23 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, calls for a legal 14:46 :3 0 24 is being considered as the cornerstone for the Next 14 :43:36 24 conclusion as to what a developed invention is . Vague 14 :46 :3 1 25 Generation Synthesis Project ." How did you come to the 14:43 :40 25 and ambiguous . 14 :46 :3 4 134 136

1 understanding that the idea was being considered as the 14 :43 :45 1 Q. Is that correct? 14 :46 :3 4 2 cornerstone for the NGSS project? 14:43 :47 2 A. .. Yes. - _ 14 :46 :36 3 A. Well, I proposed the idea, and I was assigned 14 :43:54 3 Q. Under conception date it says, "I conceived 14 :46:36 4 to research it further and report back the results, so 14:43 :59 4 the idea on February 29th (or at least the step that 14 :46:4 3 5 in the context of NGSS project . 14 :44:09 5 convinced me it was feasible) . I'm still working on a 14 :46:46 6 Q. Did someone say to you, Dr. van Ginneken, 14 :44 :11 6 prototype ." What was the Idea you conceived on February 14:46 :49 7 this Is promising, we may use this as the foundation for 14:44 :16 7 29th that showed you that It was feasible? 14 :46:53 8 the NGSS project? 14:44 :23 8 A. Well, I think the Insight on February 29 was 14 :46 :58 9 A. Perhaps not In those words, but yes. 14 :44:25 9 that the constant delay method could be used even in the 14 :47:0 5 10 Q . Old you get that feedback from IBM or from 14 :44 :28 10 absence of continuously sizable libraries for logic 14 :47:14 11 Synopsys or both? 14 :44 :32 11 synthesis process. And the reasoning was that since 14 :47 :1 8 12 A . I think mostly from Synopsys but also from 14 :44 :33 12 placement is going to change wire length and therefore 14 :47:27 13 IBM. 14:44 :37 13 wire loads, you can assume that wire loads are unknown, 14:47 :3 1 14 Q So It was your understanding that IBM viewed 14 :44:38 14 and if they're unknown you might as well assume that 14 :47 :40 15 this as the cornerstone for the joint NGSS project? 14 :44:40 15 they're going to be Ideal . It's basically you have an 14:47 :42 16 A. Well, at this time it was just considered as 14 :44:45 16 unknown variable, and you have a dependency between 14:47 :47 17 such. No decision had been taken . 14:44 :48 17 delay area and load . When you don't know anything about 14 :47:5 2 18 Q. You still had to develop the concept and 14 :44 :51 18 one of the variables, In this case the load, you might 14 :48 :0 1 19 approve it? 14 :44:54 19 as well assume that the other variables can be whatever 14 :48 :06 20 A. We still were doing research, and we were 14:44 :54 20 you want them to be. 14:48:09 21 working towards a white paper. 14:44 :57 21 Q . So you just assumed away the problem imposed 14 :48 :12 22 Q. Then there's a sentence that says, "This is 14 :45 :02 22 by the wire load? 14:48 :1 5 23 why Joe Raffa and Robert Damian have asked me to seek 14:45 :05 23 A. Yeah . We just assumed away the problem, 14 :48 :17 24 patent protection ." Who Is Joe Raffa? 14 :45:13 24 basically . 14:48:1 9 25 A . _.__I think he was George Swan's manager, be one 14 :45:17 25 Q . Now, with regard to the assumption about 14:48 :20 135 137

35 (Pages 134 to 137) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 continuously sized libraries, that was also an 14:48 :24 1 Q. By contrast, the paper "Driving on the 14 :51 :4 5 2 assumption that Grodstein made, correct? 14:48:27 2 Left-hand Side of the Performance Speedway, you would 14 :51:48 3 A. Yes. 14:48:30 3 not refer to that as a white paper, would you? 14 :51 :52 4 Q. So what you had done was added an additional 14 :48:30 4 - A. No. 14:51:55 5 assumption that one could ignore the actual wire length 14 :48 :34 5 Q . That was intended for publication outside of 14 :51 :56 6 during logic synthesis? 14:48 :37 6 both IBM and Synopsys, correct? 14 :51 :59 7 A. Well, it's almost more like removing 14 :48 :40 7 A. Yes. 14 :52 :02 8 assumption. 14:48 :43 8 Q . It was intended for publication to the world? 14:52 :02 9 Q. Just ignore it completely? 14 :48 :44 9 A. Yes. 14 :52 :0 4 10 A. Yeah . If you don't know anything about wire 14 :48:46 10 Q . Now, you state, "I also authored a 'white 14 :52 :0 5 11 length, you don't have to presuppose continuously 14 :48:50 11 paper' on the fixed timing inventions. In fact, that 14 :52:10 12 sizable libraries . 14:48:53 12 white paper, the constant delay methodology, was 14 :52:13 13 Q . As of April 25th, 1996, had you arrived at a 14 :48:55 13 authored by both you and Mr . Kudva; is that correct? 14 :52 :16 14 conception of how to determine the initial intended 14 :49:08 14 A. That's correct . 14 :52 :20 15 delay? 14 :49 :10 15 Q. Did you question Synopsys's attorneys for why 14 :52 :2 0 16 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 14 :49:12 16 they didn't put Mr . Kudva's name there? 14 :52 :27 17 Calls for claim construction . 14:49:14 17 A. No, I did not . 14 :52 :33 18 A. I don't really recall that . I think we 14 :49 :16 18 Q. But there's no doubt in your mind that Mr . 14:52 :33 19 arrived at that point, but this is in the middle of a 14 :49 :24 19 Kudva was a co-author of that paper, correct? 14 :52 :39 20 process which began March 5th and concluded in writing 14 :49 :27 20 A. Certainly . 14 :52 :4 2 21 of the white paper, and I think at this point we had at 14 :49:34 21 Q . And certainly that paper was considered an 14 :52 :42 22 least some idea of how to do that, but I can't be sure 14 :49 :40 22 IBM-Synopsys white paper, correct? 14 :52:46 23 about that . 14:49 :42 23 A. Yes, it was . 14:52 :49 24 Q . And when you say "we" you meant you and Mr . 14 :49 :43 24 Q . Now, in the white paper you and Mr. Kudva 14 :52:5 0 25 Kudva? 14 :49 :46 25 actually developed a working prototype ; is that correct? 14 :52 :59 138 140

1 A. Yes. 14 :49:48 1 A. Yes. 14:53 :05 2 Q . And you and Mr . Kudva were working on a 14 :49 :48 2 Q . And this was a prototype of your constant 14:53 :05 3 prototype; is that correct? 14:49 :52 3 delay synthesis; Is that correct? 14 :53 :10 4 A. That's correct, 14 :49 :52 4 A. Yes. 14 :53 :1 4 5 Q. If I can ask you to refer back to your 14 :49 :53 5 Q. And through your prototype on constant delay 14 :53 :1 4 6 declaration which was Exhibit No . 1, paragraph 24 of 14:50 :22 6 synthesis system, you demonstrated some important 14 :53 :2 1 7 your declaration, please . States, "In addition to the 14 :50 :43 7 results from the application of your ideas, correct? 14 :53:27 8 preparation of the draft patent applications, I also 14 :50 :49 8 A. Yes . 14 :53 :3 1 9 authored a 'white paper' on the fixed timing inventions . 14 :50 :54 9 Q . You demonstrate, for example, using your 14 :53 :31 10 The white paper was titled 'The Constant Delay 14 :51 :00 10 constant delay prototype, you and Mr. Kudva demonstrated 14 :53 :37 11 Methodology' and set forth several aspects of the 14 :51 :04 11 that slack and constant delay is better on average than 14 :53 :4 0 12 inventions described In the patents." 14 :51 :09 12 slack achieved by standard synthesis, Is that correct? 14 :53 :45 13 Dr . van Ginneken, when you refer to a white 14 :51 :16 13 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 14 :53:48 14 paper, do you mean by that an interim publication? 14 :51 :20 14 Lack of foundation. 14:53 :.5 0 15 A. Yes. 14:51 :22 15 A. Could you repeat the question? 14 :53:5 1 16 Q. That white paper was never, to your 14 :51 :23 16 Q. Certainly. Through the prototype that you 14 :53 :52 17 knowledge, intended to be published outside of Synopsys, 14 :51 :25 17 and Mr. Kudva developed, the prototype of the constant 14 :53 :5 7 18 correct? 14 :51 :28 18 delay system, you demonstrated that slack in constant 14 :54 :0 0 19 A. Well, it was intended to be published inside 14 :51 :29 19 delay is better on average than slack achieved by 14 :54 :06 20 of IBM as well . 14:51:32 , 20 standard synthesis; is that correct? 14 :54:09 21 Q . I'm sorry, right. So the white paper 14:51 :33 21 MR . EDELMAN : Same objections. 14 :54 :11 22 entitled "Constant Delay Methodology" was intended to be 14 :51 :37 22 A. Within the context of the experiments that we 14 :54:12 23 published and distributed within IBM and Synopsys, 14 :51 :41 23 did, yes. 14:54 :14 24 correct? 14 :51 :44 24 Q. So within the context of the experiments that 14 :54 :1 5 25 A. Yes. 14:51 :45 25 you did, you compared the results that you got using the 14 :54 :1 8 139 141

36 (Pages 138 to 141) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 I constant delay synthesis system versus a conventional 14 :54 :22 1 Kudva wrote the white paper? 14 :57:27 2 synthesis? 14:54:25 2 A . Yes. 14.57 :2 9 3 A. Yes. 14:54:27 3 Q. In writing the white paper, what 14:57:29 4 Q. What conventional synthesis tool did you use 14 :54:28 4 contributions did Mr . Kudva make to the white paper? 14 :57 :32 5 for purposes of comparison? 14 :54 :3 1 5 A . He wrote the results section . Performed the 14 :57:38 6 A . Synopsys internal tool . 14 :54 :33 6 experiments . He implemented some of the experimental 14 :57:4.` 7 Q. In addition, did you demonstrate, you and Mr . 14:54 :37 7 code, That's about it. 14 :57:4 9 8 Kudva from IBM, using the prototype that synthesis using 14 :54 :45 8 Q. In answering that question would it assist 14 :57:54 9 constant delay is significantly faster than synthesis 14 :54 :5 1 9 you to look at the white paper, to go through it? 14 :57:56 10 based on normal load-dependent delay models? 14 :54 :54 10 - A. Perhaps. 14:57 :5 9 11 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 14:54 :59 11 MR . RILEY : I think that raises an issue 14:58:00 12 A. Yes, 14 :55 :0 1 12 about designation . Do we have a 3:00 call with the 14:58:03 13 Q . Was that an objective of the constant delay 14 :55:01 13 court? Lets take our break , 14:58:06 14 synthesis system? 14:55 :06 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 14 :58:10 15 MR. EDELMAN : Same objection . 14:55 :08 15 time now is approximately 2:57 p.m. Th is is the end of 14 :58:12 16 A. Yes . 14:55 :09 16 tape No . 2 in the deposi tion of Lukas van Ginneken . 14:58:17 17 Q. Did you demonstrate any other results that 14 :55 :09 17 (Recess.) 15:10:59 18 proved the value of the constant delay synthesis system? 14 :55 :14 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 15:46:29 19 A. Could you repeat that? Sorry . 14 :55 :2 3 19 Th e time now is approximately 3 :46 p.m., and this is the 15 :46:30 20 MR . RILEY: Could you read it back . 14 :55 :36 20 beginning of tape No . 3 In the deposi tion of Lukas van 15 :46:34 21 (Record read as requested.) 14:55 :38 21 Ginneken . 15:46:38 22 A. I'm not sure about that. 14 :55 :39 22 Q . Dr. van Ginneken , referring again to 15 :46:44 23 Q . Based on the results from the constant delay 14:55 :44 23 paragraph 24 of your declaration , do you have that in 15 :46:46 24 synthesis system prototype that you and Mr . Kudva 14 :56:02 24 front of you? 15 :46:5 0 25 developed, and the white paper that you published with 14 :56 :05 25 A . Yes . 15 :46:54 142 144

1 Mr. Kudva within IBM and Synopsys, did you make any 14 :56 :09 1 Q. This is in reference to the white paper that 15 :46 :54 2 recommendations regarding the adoption of the constant 14 :56 :15 2 was titled "The Constant Delay Methodology ." And in 15 :46:56 3 delay methodology? 14 :56 :18 3 paragraph 24 you state, "The white paper was titled 'The 15 :47 :00 4 A. Yes. 14:56 :21 4 Constant Delay Methodology' and sets forth several 15 :47 :0 4 5 Q. What recommendations did you and Mr. Kudva 14 :56 :21 5 aspects of the inventions contained In the Patents ." 15 :47 :08 6 make? 14:56 :24 6 And by patents, capital P, you're referring to the '446 15:47 :1 1 7 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation . 14 :56:25 7 and 438 patent that were issued to Magma, correct? 15 :47 :1 5 8 A. We recommended that it was adopted for an 14 :56:27 8 A. Yes. 15:47:20 9 NGSS project. 14 :56:31 9 Q. "This paper contained, for instance, a 15 :47 :20 10 Q . And that would be adoption by both companies? 14 :56 :32 10 description of the use of fixed timing as it related to 15 :47 :24 11 A. It's a joint project. 14 :56:36 11 logical effort and gain, sizing and placement, 15 :47 :30 12 Q . So the answer is yes, it would be adoption by 14 :56 :37 12 buffering, transition time effects, area optimization 15:47 :32 13 both companies? 14 :56:40 13 and area estimation . The end of the paper recommended 15 :47 :3 5 14 A. Yes. 14:56:41 14 that Synopsys adopt the fixed timing methodology for its 15 :47 :4 1 15 Q. Earlier today we discussed U-Pen Yuan ; is 14:56:41 15 tools." 15:47 :44 16 that correct? 14:57 :03 16 MR . RILEY ., I'd like to have this marked as 15 :47 :45 17 A. Yes. 14:57 :04 17 the next exhibit. 15 :47 :46 18 Q . And you mentioned that he was a summer 14 :57:04 18 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 24 .) 15:48 :17 19 student that worked for you ; is that correct? 14 :57 :07 19 MR . EDELMAN : I'm going to have to object to 15 :48 :17 20 A. Yes. 14:57 :08 20 questioning on this document. 15 :48 :1 9 21 Q . Did he carry forward any of the research that 14 :57 :08 21 MR . RILEY: You will object to any 15 :48:2 0 22 you and Mr . Kudva were doing on the constant delay? 14 :57 :13 22 questioning at all, even on the front page of the 15 :48:22 23 A. Yes. He continued where we -- at the point 14 :57 :17 23 document? 15 :48 :2 4 24 where we left off when we wrote the white paper. 14:57 :19 24 MR . EDELMAN : I think the front page Is okay . 15:48 :24 25 Q . So his contributions came after you and Mr . 14:57 :22 25 But once it gets into the content there's a lot of 15:48 :46 143 145

37 (Pages 142 to 145) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 information in here that I would need a protective order 15 :48 :49 1 Of course you should get to examine the witness on this 15:51 :25 2 certificate for. 15:48:52 2 document . The witness won't sign on the protective 15 :51:28 3 Q. So on the cover of Exhibit 24, there's a 15 :48 :52 3 order so my hands are tied . 15:51 :3 0 4 reference to you, Dr . van Ginneken and Prabhakar Kudva 15 :48 :56 4 MR . RILEY : We will move to strike any 15 :51 :3 3 5 as the co-authors of this white paper, correct? 15 :49 :02 5 assertions about documents that you preclude us from 15 :51 :3 4 6 A. Correct . 15 :49 :06 6 questioning . 15:51 :38 7 Q, And it says, "This paper present a new 15 :49 :06 7 MR . EDELMAN : You do whatever you need to do . 15 :51 :39 8 methodology for synthesis and physical design named the 15 :49:09 8 You explain to the judge why the witness won't sign on 15 :51 :40 9 constant delay methodology . It is named the constant 15 :49 :13 9 to a protective order. 15:51 :43 10 delay methodology because the delay of the gates are 15 :49 :19 10 BY MR . RILEY : 15:51 :48 11 kept constant by sizing . The methodology based on 15 :49:21 11 Q. Did you finish the white paper before you 15 :51 :48 12 constant delay has many advantages, most notably, 15 :49:24 12 started to draft the patent applications at Synopsys, 15 :51:51 13 guaranteed timing closure and much faster synthesis . We 15 :49:28 13 Dr. van Ginneken? 15 :51:56 14 propose this methodology as the future direction for the 15 :49 :33 14 A. Yes . 15:51 :57 15 synthesis of high performance CMOS designs . An 15 :49 :35 15 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 25 .) 15 :51 :5 8 16 important requirement of this methodology is to be able 15 :49 :40 16 MR. RILEY : Exhibit 25 is a draft patent 15 :52 :48 17 to perform powerful sizing during replacement . To do 15 :49 :42 17 application of van Ginneken for "System and Method for 15 :52 :52 18 this, libraries with many sizes are needed, and good 15 :49:47 18 Constant Delay Synthesis," docket No . A 1996-005 15 :53 :00 19 integration of sizing with placement is needed ." 15:49 :49 19 prepared by Graham and James . Its Bates stamped 15 :53:0 6 20 Was that concept that I've just discussed in 15 :49 :56 20 Synopsys 4553 through 4565. 15:53 :10 21 the abstract, was that generally presented at the 15 :49 :59 21 Do you object to my questioning the witness 15 :53 :1 9 22 November 1996 presentation by Professor Otten? 15 :50 :01 22 about this document? 15 :53 :2 1 23 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 15 :50 :07 23 MR . EDELMAN : I believe this document is in 15 :53 :21 24 Compound . 15 :50 :09 24 the public or substantially is in the public. So, no . 15:53 :24 25 A. Yes. 15 :50 :22 25 Q . Dr. van Ginneken, I'd like to ask you about 15:53 :30 146 14 8

1 MR. BULCHIS : Excuse me, counsel . So there 15 :50 :23 1 some questions about Exhibit 25 . This is a draft patent 15 :53:36 2 will be no misunderstanding, to the extent there is 15 :50 :24 2 application . Did you work on this draft patent 15 :53 :41 3 anything in Exhibit 24 that is not already publicly 15 :50:26 3 application while you were at Synopsys? 15 :53:44 4 disclosed, I want to make It clear that Dr . van Ginneken 15 :50 :29 4 A. Yes. 15 :53:46 5 agrees to keep that confidential pursuant to his 15:50:32 5 Q. And did you work -- who did you work with in 15 :53:4 6 6 agreement with Synopsys, as well as any testimony 15 :50 :34 6 connection with this? 15 :53 :5 1 7 concerning Exhibit 24 . 15 :50 :37 7 A. An attorney by the name of Laura Magerus . 15 :53 :5 3 8 MR . EDELMAN : It should also be clear that I 15 :50 :40 8 Q. And was she an employee, to your knowledge, 15 :53:58 9 would object to this being attached as an exhibit that 15 :50 :43 9 of Graham and James? 15 :53:59 10 is sent to the witness for review of the deposition 15 :50 :45 10 A. I think so . 15:54 :03 -11 transcript. 15 :50 :47 11 Q. Did she visit you at your offices at Synopsys 15 :54 :0 3 12 MR . RILEY : For the exhibits that after your 15:50 :48 12 or did you visit her at Graham and James? 15:54 :06 13 review you object to on the grounds of confidentiality 15 :50 :49 13 A. She came to Synopsys . 15 :54:09 14 we will ask the court reporter to bind those separately 15 :50 :52 14 Q. And did you prepare the first draft of this 15 :54 :1 0 15 and not present them for review . 15:50:55 15 application? 15 :54:14 16 MR. EDELMAN : That's fine. 15:50 :59 16 A. I think this draft contains some language of 15 :54:16 17 MR. RILEY: I do have to point out that you 15 :50:59 17 myself, but some elements came from the attorney . 15:54:27 18 did get a statement from this witness about the content 15:51 :05 18 Q . Turning to the first page, can you indicate 15 :54:34 19 of Exhibit 24 and you filed that of record in this 15 :51:07 19 which parts of that came from the attorney and which 15 :54:50 20 court, and your objections are precluding me from 15 :51 :10 20 parts came from you? 15 :54 :5 3 21 examining the witness about statements made about the 15 :51 :14 21 MR . EDELMAN : Before you do that, I just want 15 :54 :5 5 22 content of the document. 15 :51 :16 22 to make clear, we have claimed privilege, and obviously 15 :54:5 7 23 MR, EDELMAN : Let me be clear . I don't have 15:51 :16 23 communications between Mr. van Ginneken and Ms. Magerus 15 :55:02 24 any problem with you examining the witness on the 15 :51 :18 24 would be privileged, so I'm okay to let that question go 15 :55 :0 6 25 document if the witness signs on the protective order. 15 :51:21 25 as long as you agree that's not going to amount to any 15 :55:10 147 149

38 (Pages 146 to 149) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 I waiver of the privilege, 15 :55 :14 1 MR. RILEY : Exhibit 26 is a patent 16:01 :1 4 2 MR . RILEY : I'd like to get an answer to 15:55 :15 2 application that is Bates stamped SY 004566 through 16 :01 :23 3 this, but our position with regard to these patent 15 :55:16 3 4591. I believe this was intended to be -- was filed as 16:01:34 4 applications is that you put at issue the drafting 15 :55 :19 4 an exhibit to Dr, van Ginneken's declaration not under 16 :01 :40 5 communications with counsel . 15:55 :21 5 seat. May I question the witness about this? 16 :01:47 6 MR, EDELMAN : I understand your position and 15:55 :22 6 MR. EDELMAN : Yes . 16:01:49 7 the parties disagree on that . I don't want to let the 15 :55 :24 7 Q. Dr. van Ginneken, looking at this 16 :01 :50 8 questioning on this application result in a further 15 :55:26 8 application, did this application, draft application, 16:01 :55 9 argument that there's been a waiver, either on that 15 :55:31 9 follow subsequently to Exhibit 25? 16 :02 :0 3 10 issue of waiver or another . So as long as we agree that 15 :55:34 10 A. You meal was it written later? 16 :02:10 11 the questioning today is not going to itself result in a 15 :55 :37 11 Q. Yes . 16 :02 :1 2 12 waiver. 15:55 :40 12 A. Yes . 16 :02 :14 13 MR. RILEY: That's correct. If you'd let me 15 :55 :41 13 Q . What was the process that led from Exhibit 25 16:02 :14 14 finish my statement. You have a tendency to interrupt, 15 :55 :44 14 to 26? 16 :02 :21 15 I was going to say we will agree that my question, if 15 :55 :46 15 MR. EDELMAN : Again, if we can have the same 16 :02:2 5 16 you allow him to answer, does not constitute a waiver . 15:55 :48 16 agreement that questioning on this document would not 16 :02:2 7 17 MR . EDELMAN : Okay . 15 :55 :53 17 result in a waiver of any privilege . 16 :02 :30 18 Q . Can you point to perhaps sections in this 15 :55 :54 18 MR . RILEY: Agreed . 16 :02:32 19 patent application, Exhibit 25, which are your words 15 :55:56 19 A. I don't recall the exact document, exact 16 :02 :34 20 versus your attorney's words? 15 :55:59 20 process . There were several drafts, there were several 16 :02 :41 21 A. The first page is all my words . Second page 15 :56:18 21 meetings. There was documents being sent back and forth 16:02:45 22 is all my words, Third page, things like the heading, 15 :56 :26 22 and both of us did work on -- both of us meaning myself 16:02 :52 23 summary of invention, the present invention overcomes 15 :56 :49 23 and the attorney -- did work on the drafts. 16:02 :58 24 the problems and disadvantages of prior art by dot, dot, 15 :56 :52 24 Q. And other than yourself and the attorney, did 16:03 :02 25 dot, short discussion of the inventions, that is from 15:56 :55 25 anyone else review the drafts of the patent 16 :03 :06 150 152

1 the attorney. 15:56 :58 1 applications? 16 :03 :1 1 2 Page 4, in accordance with the purpose of 15 :56 :59 2 A. Not to my knowledge . 16 :03 :1 2 3 the invention, as embodied and broadly described herein, 15:57 :18 3 Q . Your supervisor never saw these? 16:03:1 4 4 the invention is (first broad claim here) In paragraph 15 :57:19 4 A. I don't know for sure, but I don't know that 16 :03 :1 9 5 form," that's from the attorney . Next three lines are 15:57:20 5 he saw them. 16:03:21 6 from the attorney, The next paragraph is by the 15:57:27 6 Q. Did you circulate them, to your knowledge, to 16 :03:22 7 attorney: Objects and advantages. Brief description of 15 :57 :35 7 anyone else on the NGSS team? 16 :03 :2 5 8 the drawings and the following paragraph. 15:57 :38 8 A. No. 16 :03 :2 7 9 First paragraph at the top of page 5. Second 15 :57 :48 9 MR. RILEY : Maybe we should get ready for the 16 :03 :33 10 paragraph starting on "a preferred embodiment" is the 15 :58 :09 10 call . 16 :03 :35 11 attorneys. Following paragraph starting with 'The 15:58 :19 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the video 16 :03 :36 12 software program" contains at least some language by me . 15:58 :23 12 record . The time now is approximately 4 :03 p .m . 16 :03:3 8 13 And the enumeration A, B, C is by me . 15 :58 :40 13 (Recess .) 16 :12 :1 8 14 Page 6 is by the attorney . Page 7, I believe 15 :58:48 14 . . . THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record . 16:12 :18 15 claims have been written by me or at least partially by 15 :58 :56 15 The time now is approximately 4 :12 p .m . 16:12:20 16 me . Same for page 8, same for page 9, same for page 10 . 15 :59 :20 16 17 11 is empty. 12 is by the attorney . 15 :59 :36 17 18 MR, OBSTLER : Can we go off the record for a 16 :00 :05 18 19 second? 16 :00:07 19 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 16:00 :09 20 21 time now Is approximately 3 :59 p .m . 16 :00 :11 21 22 (Recess.) 16:00 :45 22 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. 16 :00 :46 23 24 The time now is approximately 4 p.m . 16 :00:47 24 25 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 26 .) 16:01 :12 25 151 153

39 (Pages 150 to 153 ) EASlWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 CONFIDENTIA L

APPEARANCES 1 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 16 :13:55 A. Yes. 16 :13:57 FOR SYNOPSYS : 2 MICHAEL EDELMAN 3 Q. And then you said, "I will deliver an initial 16:13:57 Attorney at Law 4 and the scope 16:14 LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT investigation into the technical validi ty :00 975 Page Mlil Road 5 of applicabili ty of the constant delay paradigm by May 16 :14:04 Palo Alto, California 94304-1013 6 17th in the form of a white paper, that is, the Synopsys 16 :14 :07 and CHRIS SCOTT GRAHAM 7 internal research report." And that report is Exhibit 16 :14 :11 Attorney at Law 8 LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT 24, the white paper draft, the constant delay 16:14 :17 1117 California Avenue 9 methodology , correct? 16 :14:20 Palo Alto, California 94304-1106 10 A. Yes . 16:14 :22 FOR MAGMA : 11 Q . Is Exhibit 24 the only white paper you did 16 :14 :22 GEORGE A. RILE Y PETER OBSTLER 12 while you were at Synopsys? 16 :14:2 6 Attorneys at Law 13 A. Yes, I think so. 16:14:3 3 O'MELVENY & MYERS Embarcadero Center West 14 Q . Your de cl ara ti on refers at some point to a 16 :14 :35 275 Battery Street 15 plural, white papers, and occasionally to white pa 16:14 :39 Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94111-3305 16 Is Exhibit 24 the only white paper you did on constan 16 :14 ; 17 delay methodology ?i 16 :14 : FOR THE WITNESS : 1 8 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambig " :14:48 as to the term "white paper." 16 :14: EDWARD W . BULCHIS 19 Attorney at Law 20 A . As far as I re member, yes . . 16:14:52 DORSEY & WHITNEY 21 Q . In the next paragra fter the re gnceito 16:14 :55 1420 Fifth Avenue Suite 3400 22 white paper on Exhibit 22 "' 16:15:0 2 Seattle, Washington 98101 23 MR. RILEY: Th Exhibit 22, the 16 :15:06 ALSO PRESENT: BROOK YOUNG, Videographer 2 4 objectives . 16:15 :09 STEPHEN MELVIN 25 MR. EDEA 16 :15:10 r w*; 2 155

1 (Beginning of confidential session .) 16 :12 :25 1 yo , id, F this objective , a constant 16:15:1 6 l 2 16:12:25 2 oto sy sis system will be developed on 16 :15:18 3 BY MR . RILEY : 16:12 :2 5 the ba f A And ABO was an inte rn al Synopsys 16 :15:21 4 Q . Dr. van Ginneken, I would like to ask you to 16 :12 :26 tool? 16 :15:28 5 place in front of you Exhibit 24 and Exhibit 22 which, 16 :12:28 5 A s. It's an internal electric synthesis 16 :15 :29 6 pursuant to Judge Zimmerman's direction, we'll treat 16 :12 37 sy hich is part of Design Compiler, which has been 16 :15:32 7 these exhibits as separately sealed, and we will seal 16: 2.40 7 ,eloped out of Berkeley MIS. 16 :15 :36 8 the following questions related to these exhibit . 16:1 8 Q. Berkeley MIS being a public domain CAD 16 :15:39 9 Could you identify Exhibit 22, please . AN7 9 program? 16 :15:44 10 A. These are quarterly performance objectives, 1 •50 10 A. Yes . 16:15 :44 11 which I wrote . 1 1311 11 Q. And it says , 'The plan calls for the 16:15:45 12 Q . And this Is a reference to the third , er, 16 :13 :1 1 12 following modules to be implemented : One, libra ry 16:15:48 13 correct? l6: 4 13 analysis based on the concept of 'logical effort'; two, 16 :15:51 14 A. Yes . 16 :1315 14 statistical timing analysis and wire load models based 16 :15:56 15 Q. And that would be Synopsys'sthird fiscal 16 :13 :15 15 on 'rent 's rule '; three , sizing algorithm for conversion 16 :15:59 16 quarter? 20 16 from 'constant delay ' to 'conventional delay' ; and four, 16 :16:03 17 A. Probably this would be quarter 9f April, May 16 :13 :22 17 a globally optimal mapping algorithm." And you state 16:16:09 18 and June . 16 :13 :26 18 that you will write , one, libra ry analysis; th ree, 16 :16:14 19 Q. And this Is a regular pr dentifying 16:13 :27 19 sizing algorithm; and four, the globally op timal mapping 16 :16:18 20 quarterly objectives by employees at Synopsys, to your 16 :13 :32 20 algorithm. 16:16:23 21 knowledge? 16 :13 :36 21 Did you in fact complete those tasks ? 16 :16:24 22 A. At that time, it was . 16 :13 :36 22 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 16 :16:26 23 Q. You state that "I will cooperate with 16 :13:37 23 as to the te rm "complete ." 16:16:2 7 24 Prabhakar Kudva of IBM research ." Did you view this as 16 :13 :43 24 A. Not entirely. We did not write a new global 16 :16:28 25 a collaboration, the work on constant delay initiative? 16 :13:50 25 optimal mapping algorithm. 16:16:33 154 156 i 2 (Pages 2 to 156) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1296491 3-eel e-435a-b679-f6eel f4810cc CONFIDENTIAL

1 Q. What did you do? 16 :16:36 1 capabilities. 16:19:40 2 A, Instead we used the existing mapping 16 :16:37 2 Q, What did he implement? 16 :19:43 3 algorithm and modified It to use the constant delay 16 :16:39 3 A. I don't recall all of the things that he 16 :19 :44 4 models . 16 :16:42 4 implemented , but one thing that he implemented was a 16:19:47 5 Q . How about the library analysis based on the 16 :16:44 5 stretching compressing algorithm. 16:19:51 6 concept of logical effo rt? 16:16:47 6 Q . Did he write the stretching compression 16 :19:54 7 A . Yes . 16 :16:49 7 algorithm? 16 :19:56 8 Q. And logical effort th ere Is in single quotes . 16:16:50 8 A . He wrote the code for that, yes . 16:19:57 9 That's a reference to the work by Sutherland that Kudva 16 :16 :56 9 Q. Did he use an existing model for the 16 :19:59 10 contributed ? 16 .17:01 10 stretching and compression or did he originate that 16 :20:03 11 A . Yes. 16:17: 02 11 en tirely himself? 16 :20:06 12 MR. EDELMAN : Obje ction, vague and ambiguous . 16 :17:02 12 A . We discussed how he should go about writing 16:20:08 13 Mischaracterizes testimony. 16 :17 :05 13 the algorithm. 16:20:12 14 Q. And then three says, "Sizing algo rithm for 16:17:06 14 Q. But It states, "I will make a plan for 16:20:13 15 conversion from 'constant delay' to 'conventional 16 :17:11 15 developing the constant delay par m into a Synopsys 16 :20:17 16 delay.'" Did you complete that algorithm? 16:17 :13 16 product." Did Synopsys, to your kno e, ever 16 :20:19 17 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 16:17 :17 17 implement the constant del adigm i ct? 16 :20:27 18 A . Yes . 16:17: 19 18 MR. EDELMAN : Obj 'on , ambiguous. 16 :20:31 19 Q . And was that used to deal wi th the problem 16:17:19 19 A. Not to my k ledge 16:20 :33 20 th at your libraries weren't continuously sized but 16 :17 :23 20 Q. Why? 16:20:39 21 existed In discrete form? 16:17:30 21 MR . AN : O on, calls for 16 :20:43 22 A . Yes. 16 :17 :32 22 speculati 16 :20:44 23 Q. Do you recall when you wrote Exhibit 22? 16 :17:33 23 A. on't know Why. I mean, there was a 16 :20:45 24 A. Not precisely, but given third qua rter 16:17:49 24 p roject on when ri ft Synopsys, and as far as 1 16:20:48 25 objectives it must have been around end of March, 16 :17 :54 . 25 , #i s was not tu rned into a product. I'm 16:20: 58 157 159

1 beginning of April . 16 :17 : 59 not sur , why, but it had been -- project was stopped 16 : 21:03 2 Q, So this would be before you went to visit IBM 16:1$ . aftea ' left. 16:21 :07 3 in mid April of 1996? 16:18:03 Did anyone at Synopsys or IBM at any point 16 :21:09 4 A . That's likely, 16:18:09 . 4 suggest to you that the approach would not be used in a 16 :21:13 5 Q. So this would be, then, before Professor 6 :1 P5 product? 16:21:18 6 Otten Invited you to make the presentation to D ; i 6 : 6 A. No. 16:21 :23 7 that correct? :18 7 Q . So when you left it was a surprise to you 16 :21:23 B A. Yes. 8 that it never appeared in a product? 16:21:28 9 Q. And then If you look under th e k 16:18:24 9 MR . EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous . 16 :21:30 10 says after May 17th, you have a ragraph sa 16 :18:36 10 A, Yes. 16 :21 :3 1 11 "Coach and mentor U-Pen Yuan, 20th . 16: 18 :41 11 Q . When you left you believed that they would 16:21 :33 12 I will help Li -Pen to get sta n ork on the 16:18:47 12 continue the work and implement it in a product? 16:21 :37 13 constant delay problenl -Pen a e the 16:18:50 13 A . Yes. 16:21:40 14 research that I and P bhakar sta rt " and "I will set 16 :18:56 14 Q . And why did you believe that? 16 :21:40 15 up weekly meedn s wit s-Pen ." 16: 19 :03 15 A . Because there was a number of people that are 16 :21:42 16 Wh o say tha continue th e 16 :19:04 16 working on th is project. 16:21:48 } 17 research t you, Dr . V Ginneken , and Prabhakar -- 16 :19:07 17 Q. And who was working on th e project? 16 :21:50 18 that's Kudv started, v'Pat research were you 16 : 19 :09 18 A. Both IBM and Synopsys . People at Synopsys, 16:21:55 19 refer ri ng to? 4 16 :19:14 19 people like Mahesh Iyer, Narendra Shenoy, Tony Ma, 16 :22:00 20 A . Th e prototyping that we did in ABO . 16:19 :18 20 myself until I left, Robert Damiano, several people in 16 :22:05 21 Q. So Li-Pen continued that work? 16 ;19:27 21 Portland whose names I can't all remember. One of them 16 :22:07 22 A. Yes. 16:19:30 22 is Stanion . Then at IBM, Prabhakar Kudva, Leon Stok , 16:22:14 23 Q . Did he make any contributions to that 16:19:30 23 Andrew Sullivan, Nathaniel Hieter, possibly others . 16:22:18 24 development ? 16 :19:33 24 Q . And they were all working on some aspect of 16 :22:3 6 25 A. Yeah . He implemented several additional 16 :19:36 25 constant delay synthesis? 16 :22 :41 . 158 160

3 (Pages 157 to 160) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 12964913-eel e-435a-b679-f6ee 1 f4810cc CONFIDENTIA L

1 A. They were working on NGSS, not necessarily on 16 :22:43 1 A. Yes. 16 :26 :06 2 constant delay . 16 :22 :46 2 Q. "The basic idea is that at some point, it 16 :26 :07 3 Q When you left Synopsys, was the constant 16 :22:50 3 becomes more advantageous to use a buffer to increase 16 :26 :11 4 delay paradigm, as you refer to it, was that being sort 16 :22 :53 4 the gain rather than to increase the gain of the gate 16 :26:15 5 of propagated through the other parts of NGSS? 16 :22 :56 5 itself. By adding more and more buffers, each one of a 16 :26 :18 6 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 16 :23 :00 6 larger size, the gain of the combination can grow 16 :26:25 7 A. Yes. 16:23 :01 7 exponentially as delay increases . In comparison, if one 16 :26:28 8 Q. So the other parts of the tool were being 16:23 :03 8 uses only the gate itself, the gain only increases 16 :26 :32 9 adopted to a constant delay paradigm? 16 :23:08 9 linearly with delay ." 16 :26 :35 10 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 16:23 :12 10 Now, that observation is from Sutherland, 16 :26 :41 11 Q. Is that correct? 16 :23 :13 11 correct? 16 :26 :45 12 A. Yes . 16 :23 :15 12 A. Yes. 16 :26:4 5 13 Q. You state in the next paragraph, "I will 16:23 :15 13 Q . And Kudva was the one who brought Sutherland 16 :26:45 14 develop further contacts between the logic synthesis 16 :23 :18 14 to you, correct? 16 :26 :49 15 group and Silicon Architects for the purpose of library 16:23 :21 15 A. Yes. 16 :26 : O 16 design and analysis . The objective is to create an 16 :23 :25 16 Q. And then at the bottom of that page 10, 16 :26 :50 17 automated set of library design criteria based on the 16:23:29 17 again, page Bates stamp 7492, you and Mr,- a write, 16 :27 :06 18 constant delay paradigm which can be used as guidelines 16 :23 :33 18 'The interpretation of using this constant delay as'tfie 16:27 :14 19 in the design of libraries ." Did you do that? 16 :23 :36 19 delay to be used in synthesis is that .ti' delay 14 tide 16:27 :18 20 A. Yes . 16:23:47 20 cross-over point between using buffersand no buffers. 16:27 :21 21 Q. Who at Silicon Architects did you work with 16 :23 :50 21 In other words, a delay of a QAe on a critical.path 16 :27:26 22 for the purpose of creating an automated set of library 16 :23 :53 22 should never be slower thai this. If more patAain is 16 :27:30 23 design criteria? 16 :23 :58 23 required, a buffer is a r solution than slowing 16 :27 :35 24 A. I don't remember his name. I can picture 16 :24 :00 24 down the gate . Also, iff co nuous sizing is permitted, 16:27 :37 25 him . He was like a senior guy at Silicon Architects. 16:24 :08 25 using the buffer ,,MI bb :.e :drtor? efficient solution ." 16 :27 :42 161 163

1 He moved to the Advanced Technology Group also around 16 :24 : 11 1 Is that, in fac ,_ the way in which you 16 :27 :5 1 2 that time, and I had various discussions with him . I 16 :24 : 14 2 defined the init lf'intended delays in the proto type 16:27 :5 2 3 just don't remember his name . 16 :24 : 19 , that you,4nd Mr if udva developed ? 16 :27 :5 5 4 Q. Can you describe him? 16 :24:20 A . This idea lies at th e basis of the method we 16 :27 :5 8 5 A . Fairly tall guy . I don't know how to 16 :24:21 5 V 'se for determining the initial intended delay , yes . 16 :28 :04 6 describe him . 16 :24:28 15 q,--_Y-So when you and Mr. Kudva did your 16 :28:10 7 Q . Did you discuss the constant delay paradigm 16 :24 ;29 7 t~eriments, you used this method to determine the 16 :28 :14 8 with him? 16 : 24 :32 8 i ii3tial intended delay for the cells? 16 :28:1 7 9 A . Yes . 16 :24 :32 `' 9 A. Yes. 16:28 :22 10 Q . Did you explain to him what you were tryin 16 :2 10 Q. Dr . van Ginneken , at page 19 , which Is Bates 16 :28:23 11 to accomplish ? 1635 11 stamped 7501, there is a discussion of wire leng th 16:28:5 3 12 A . Yes. 16:24 :35 12 distribution and the statistical timer. Is this work 16 :28 :57 13 Q . Was he under some sort of confidential 16:24:36 13 that was contributed by Mr . Kudva? 16:29 :02 14 agreement with Synopsys, to your knowledge? 16 :24 :38 14 A. Well, Mr . Kudva implemented the code to the 16 :29:1 3 i5 A. - He was a Synopsys employee. 16 :24 :41 15 statistical modeling of the wires. 16:29 :2 7 16 Q . He was a full-time SynopsyStmployee ?. 16 :24:43 16 Q . Did he write this section of th e paper? 16:29:3 1 17 A. Yes . 16:24 :45 17 A . That I don't believe so . 16 :29:3 4 18 Q . Now turning to Exhibit 24 . If you turn to 16:24:45 18 Q . He provided you with the results? 16:29 :40 19 page 10 of the white paper, whlcb 4 $ t 24, Bates 16 :25:31 19 A . Well, the graphs don 't refer to the results 16 :29 :47 20 stamped 7492, there Is a discussion Ideal buffering 16 :25:34 20 of the statistical models . 16 :29:50 21 where you state , "The method that we propose for finding 16 :25:50 21 Q. The results that later follow on table 2? 16 :29:54 22 the constant delays Is based an a comparison of the 16 :25:53 22 A. Yes. 16:29:59 23 gates to an amplifier, either a buffer or an inverter." 16:25:56 23 Q. And the figure 6, which later appears in your 16 :30:00 24 And the "we" there referred to you and Mr . Kudva, 16 :26 :03 24 rewritten 1998 paper, that says "wire load is difficult 16 :30:14 25 correct? 16 :26:06 25 to predict," where did this data come from? 16 :30 :19 162 164

4 (Pages 161 to 164) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 12964913-eele-435a-b679-f6eelf4810cc CONFIDENTIAL

1 A . I don't recall where that data came from . It 16 :30:22 1 Q . Second full paragraph it says, '"fhe constant 16 :33:53 2 may have come either from Silicon Architects or from 16 :30:36 2 delay model is considerably easier to use than the 16 :33:55 3 IBM . 16:30:38 3 normal delay model . As a result, it will be easier for 16 :33:58 4 Q. And then the data in figure 7, where did that 16 :30:40 4 algorithms to predict the delay of the network after a 16 :34:03 5 come from? 16:30:46 5 network change ." Did you view this as a significant 16:34:05 6 A . I think that's the same data that was just 16 :30:50 6 conclusion? 16:34:08 7 plotted in different manner . 16:30:52 7 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 16:34:11 8 Q. And then table 2 are the experimental 16:30 :54 8 A. Yes. 16:34 :1 6 9 results . And that was from the expe riments that you and 16 :31:00 9 Q . And with regard to the experimental results 16:34:16 10 Mr. Kudva ran ? 16:31:08 10 and the important results that we've discussed earlier, 16:35:18 11 A . Yes . 16 :31 : 10 11 Mr. Kudva contributed to those experimental results as 16 :35:21 12 Q . In preparing this paper, did you and Mr. 16:31 :10 12 well as the important results showing the validity of 16 :35;27 4 13 Kudva collaborate over the telephone , sit in an office? 16 :31: 16 13 the constant delay synthesis ; is that correct? 16:35:31 14 How did the two of you go about putti ng the white paper 16 :31:22 14 A . Can you repeat the question? 16:35:34 15 which is Exhibit 24 toge ther? 16:31:24 15 MR. EDELMAN : Objection , ue and ambiguous. 16:35:35 16 A . Mostly over the telephone. 16:31;26 16 Q. Lets go back to the results ge 22 0 16 :35:38 17 Q. Did you trade drafts back and forth? 16 :31:28 17 the white paper, page 75 stamp had 16:35 :42 18 A. Yes . 16:31:31 18 asked you earlier whether y th to be 16 :35:54 ~a 19 Q. I'd like to direct your atten ti on to page 22 . 16:31:31 19 important results, th ack in - nt e y is better 16:35:59 20 First paragraph says, "The experiment shows that the 16:31 :49 20 on average than. ck ved standard synthesis, 16:36:03 21 slack in constant delay synthesis is better on average 16 :31 : 51 21 and that syn ;s using c nielay is significantly 16 :36:07 22 than the slack that was achieved by standard synthesis . 16 :31:55 22 faster tha n Isis based o normal load-dependent 16 :36:11 23 Note that the unsized delay of the circuit is 16 :32:01 23 delay I . Isn't that Mr. Kudva cont ri buted 16 :36:15 24 significantly better than the post -PD delay ." 16:32:05 24 to the de a tion o ese important results? 16:36:19 25 Did you consider that to be a significant 16 :32: 10 25 ~, 'S+AI 'e ran the expe riments . 16:36:25 165 10 167

t3 •4 : iy 1 result? 16: 32 :12 arked Deposi ti on Exhibit 27 .) 16:36 :30 2 A . Yes. 16:32: 14 MR . RILEY : Exhibit 27 Is a paper entitled 16 :37 :56 3 Q. And th en the next paragraph it says , 16' k5 3 ; r rving on th e Left-hand Side of the Performance 16 :37:5 7 4 "Experi ment also shows that the synthesis using constan 632 :19 4 Speed -Way ." It, Bates stamped Synopsys 12221 th rough 16 :37:59 5 delay is significantly faster than synthesis based on 6 :32 . 65 12227, I'm sorry, 12228. This was not produced wi th the 16:38:09 p 6 the normal load-dependent delay mode l." Did ybfi 'beli AL6. ta 6 confidentiality designation, and we've been discussing 16 :38:17 I-ML 7 that was a significant result? 16' :32141 7 content of this in other forms. Are you going to 16 :38:21 8 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague a amb us. 1 :32:34 8 designate this as confidential for purposes of this 16:38:25 9 A. Yes , 16 .,V,36 9 deposition? 16 :38:28 10 Q . And then In the next par raph ya y "1M1 § 16 :32:36 10 MR. EDELMAN: I'm not su re whether It was a 16:38:40 11 do not report area numbers, b the 16 :32:43 11 mistake it wasn't designated con fi dential or if we 16 :38:42 12 area found by constant de th as ofte much 16 :32:46 12 decided It shouldn't be designated confidential. I just 16 :38:45 13 larger than the area r ng n onal 16: 32 :51 13 don 't recal l. Out of an abundance of caution -- 16:38:48 14 syn thesis ." What are re you fe ng to . 16 :32:53 14 MR. RILEY : Why don 't we take a break . I 16 :38:50 15 A . The sum f th ll as: . 16:32:59 15 need to take a break. 16:38 :52 16 Q. So , Id be f the circuit less. 16:33 :06 16 MR . EDELMAN : Pd have to talk to a lot of 16 :38 :53 17 the wiring? 16:33:10 17 people back In the office to be su re on that. 16 :38:56 18 A . We4l it depend h how the circuit Is laid 16 :33:13 18 MR . BULCHIS : Just to be dear on this, we 16 :38 :58 19 out. The wiry A er on top of the cells or 16:33:17 19 are only going to keep confidential documents that a re 16:39:00 20 between the cells. Since we 're doing synthesis here, we 16:33:20 20 in fact confidential. We are not going to allow you to 16 :39:03 21 have no idea what the wiring is going to look like, so 16:33:24 21 designate this transcript just because you want to keep 16 :39:05 22 the wiring is completely ignored, and only the area of 16:33:27 22 it confidential ifthe document itself is not 16 :39:08 23 the cells is considered . 16:33:30 23 confidential . My understanding Is this was supplied to 16 :39:10 24 Q . If you 'd turn , please, to the next page . 16 :33:31 24 Dr. van Ginneken while he was at Magma , and so I don't 16 :39:13 25 MR. BULCHIS : Continue on . 16 :33:45 25 think we would consider it confidential. 16:39:16 166 168

5 (Pages 165 to 168)

EAS1'WOOD -STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 12964913-eele-435a-b679 -16ee1 14810cc CONFIDENTIAL

I MR. EDELMAN : If we mark it confidential then 16 :39 :18 1 ICCAD? 16 :53 :59 2 we'll treat it confidential, That's the answer . 16 :39 :20 2 A. Not that I recall. 16 :54 :01 3 MR. BULCHIS: It's not marked confidential 16 :39 :22 3 Q . Did you circulate it to anyone at IBM? 16 :54:02 4 and we are not going to treat it confidential . 16 :39 :24 4 A. No. 16:54:1 3 5 MR . EDELMAN : Well, you know -- 16 :39 :26 5 Q . Why? 16 :54:13 6 MR . RILEY- Why don't we -- 16 :39:28 6 A. I didn't view it as a joint paper. 16:54 :1 7 7 MR, EDELMAN : I'm not sure of the answer to 16:39 :29 7 Q. You wanted this to be a solo effort? 16 :54:21 8 this one. I have to think about it. 16 :39 :31 8 A. Yes . 16:54 :2 4 9 MR . RILEY: Why don't we take a break and Mr . 16:39 :33 9 Q. Did you tell the attorney who was working on 16 :54 :25 10 Edelman can think about this . 16:39 :36 10 the patent applications that you had prepared a paper 16 :54 :38 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 16:39 :40 11 discussing th ese concepts for publication ? 16 :54 :4 5 12 time now is approximately 4 :39 p .m . 16 :39 :42 12 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, calls for an 16 :54:48 13 (Recess.) 16:51 :30 13 attorney-client communication , so I would object to that 16 :54:50 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 16 :51 :43 14 question being answered. 16 :54:54 15 The time now is approximately 4:51 p .m . 16 :51 :45 15 MR . RILEY : And you're instructing the 16 :54:58 16 MR . RILEY. So I think the question that was 16 :51 :49 16 witness? 16:55: 17 pending was whether you were going to designate Exhibit 16 :51 :51 17 MR. EDELMAN : I don 't know if I'm I 18 27 as confidential and have that included with the other 16 :51 :54 18 position to instruct the witness, but I think that tj; 5 . 19 sealed exhibits . 16:51 :58 19 clearly calls for privileged informatio 16:55i03 20 MR. EDELMAN : We would designate It as 16 :51 :59 20 MR. RILEY : Our position,its yo ow, ~ls . 16:55 :06 21 confidential, but we are willing to avoid any immediate 16 :52 :02 21 th at you've put at issue the unicatio ~ etween Dr . 16:55 :09 22 problems and not designate It at the highest level . So 16:52 :06 22 van Gjnneken and the pat alto` , so we not 16 :55:12 23 we'll designate it at the confidentiality level . 16 :52 :09 23 believe it's privileged. 16 :55:1 6 24 Q . Dr. van Ginneken, Exhibit 27 Is a copy 16 :52 :13 24 MR. EDELMAN : I ` erstand positions , and 16 :55 :17 25 produced by Synopsys of your paper which we've been 16 :52 :17 25 of course we've any communications, and 16 :55:19 169 171

I referring to as "Driving on the Le ft-hand Side ." Is 16 :52:22 1 we've never relied on communications. We've relied 16:55:23 2 th at correct? 16 :52:2 6 2 rafts but `, es can litigate that if they 16 :55:25 3 A. Yes. 16 :52 :2 6 want t j ust c t let that question go by without 16 :55:28 4 Q. And you submitted th is to ICCAD for 16 :52:26 objecting . 16:55:31 5 publication in 1996 . Do you recall when you sent it in? 16 :52:32 ` 5 MR . BULCHIS : Excuse me . I was napping a 16 :55:32 6 A . I believe it was around late August . 16:52:39 little ;bFWere you asking him did he bring Exhibit 27 16 :55 :34 7 Q. Did you finish the paper before you sta rted 16:?;44 the atten tion of the patent examiner handling the 16 :55:37 8 the draft of the patent applications that we have been 1 52 :18. 8 a plication? 16:55:40 9 looking at that were prepared at Synopsys? 2 :54 9 MR. RILEY : Yes. 16 :55:4 1 10 A . I think so. 16 2 :5 7 10 MR. BULCHIS: That he may answer . You may 16:55 :42 11 Q. So the paper to ICCAD you believe cam f 3:58 11 answer th at question . 16:55 :4 4 12 the patent applications; Is that right? 16,53:05 12 MR. EDELMAN : I'm sorry, that wasn 't th e 16:55 :45 13 A. At least largely so . There maybe some 1 3:08 13 question that you asked. 16 :55:46 14 overlap , but certainly the bulk of th e~r~ k of the paper 6:53 :13 14 MR. RILEY : I asked him did he tell the 16 :55:47 15 was before the bulk of the work the patent. 16:53:19 15 patent examiner that he prepared a paper. 16 :55:49 16 Q . The paper which isE1f 7, dfd~ ' it 16:53:21 16 MR . EDELMAN : You asked did you ask th e 16 :55:51 17 drafts of this to anyone for . view befor 'you submitted 16 :53:29 17 attorney. 16:55:54 18 it to ICCAD? 16:53:3 3 18 MR. RILEY : I'm sorry, lets go back on . 16 :55 :55 19 A. No. 16:53:35 19 MR. EDELMAN : If you had asked -- 16:55:58 20 Q. Never had anyone take a look at it? 16 :53:37 20 MR . BULCHIS : If you asked the witness did he 16 :55:59 21 A . Oh , yes . I mean, I sent it to Ralph Otten , 16:53 :40 21 b ring Exhibit 27 to the attention of the patent examiner 16 :56:02 22 but he was representing ICCAD at the time. So, yeah, he 16 :53:45 22 handling the application , he may answer that question . 16:56:06 23 took a look at it and provided some feedback . 16:53:50 23 Q. Let's start with that question, please. 16 :56:11 24 Q. Anyone other than Professor Otten anywhere 16 :53 :53 24 A. Patent examiner? 16 :56:1 3 25 take a look at Exhibit 27 before you submitted it to 16 :53:56 25 Q . The lawyer who was preparing th e patent 16:56 :15 170 172

6 (Pages 169 to 172) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 12964913 -eele-435a-b679-f6eelf4810cc CONFIDENTIA L

1 applications at Synopsys, 16 :56.17 1 MR. EDELMAN: My only objection is to the 16:58:35 2 MR . EDELMAN : So I do object. 16 :56 :19 2 extent that the question asks for a communication 16:58:39 3 MR . BULCHIS: You may answer that question . 16:56 :21 3 between Mr, van Ginneken and Synopsys, which 16 :58:41 4 MR . EDELMAN : That's dearly a privileged 16:56:23 4 communication can include providing certain information 16 :58:43 5 communication to let your client testify as to 16 :56 :25 5 to the patent attorney, that information is privileged. 16:58:47 6 privileged communications with Synopsys counsel . I just 16 :56:30 6 To the extent there's other ways to get at the same 16:58:52 7 want to make clear -- 16:56 :32 7 informa tion, I can't comment on that . I don 't know if 16 :58:54 8 MR. BULCHIS : I beg to differ. What was 16 :56 :33 8 there is or not. 16:58:57 9 given to someone who was responsible for prosecuting a 16 :56 :35 9 BY MR. RILEY : 16:58 :59 10 patent application whether this person had the prior art 16 :56 :38 10 Q . Did you discuss with the -- I'm sorry -- the 16:59:00 11 is not a privileged communication . 16:56 :41 11 attorney's name? 16:59:03 12 MR. EDELMAN : It quite clearly is . There's 16 :56:43 12 A. Laura Magerus . 16:59:0 4 13 nothing I can do about it. I'm not third witness's 16 :56:45 13 Q. Did you discuss with Ms . Magerus adding Kudva 16 :59:09 14 counsel . I can pursue ramlficatinns for failure to 16 :56:49 14 to the patents as an Inventor? 16 :59:1 3 15 preserve privilege. 16:56 :52 15 MR . EDELMAN : Same obj ' n. That's a 16 :59:19 1 MR. BULCHIS : Excuse me . Would you please 16 :56:53' 16 discussion between Mr. van Ginneken Synop 16 :59:20 1 clarify what you mean by ramifications? 16:56 :55 17 counsel. Clearly calls for a ed co . on . 16:59 :23 8 MR. EDELMAN : I mean ramifications. You know 16 :56 :58\ 18 I would cak1l an Gin en er the 16 :59:25 9 what the word means . I can get a dictionary and you can 16:57 :00, 19 question . 16:59:28 0 look up what the word ramifications means if you'd like. 16 :57:03 20 M : Lew -the threat from 16 :59:28 1 MR. BULCHIS: Are you saying that If my 16 :57 :07 21 Synopsys l instr e ; itness not to 16 :59:30 2 client answers this question you're going to sue him for 16 :57 :09 22 answer. 16:59:32 3 $100 million? 16 :57:12 23 And in view of your clien t's 16 :59:33 4 MR. EDELMAN : Might be two. 16 :57 :14 24 obligation is forme mployer and his obligations 16:59 :35 9VI 5 MR. BULCHIS: Might be 200, okay . 16:57 :15 5 ent agreement, I might add . 16:59:38 175

1 ... Q. Dr. van Ginneken, did you in any fashion 16 :57 :15 Q. Did you discuss with Laura Magerus Synopsys's 16 :59 :44 2 bring to the a ttention of the atto rn ey who was 16 :5 de ' not to patent anything related to constant delay 16 :59:4 9 3 prosecu ting or preparing the patent applications, since 6 :57:21 3 use IBM would have to be included as an owner? 16:59 :54 4 th ey were never prosecuted, the existence of Exhibit 27`46:57:2 5 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . Caution the 16:59 :59 5 MR. BULCHIS : I will instruct the witness no 6:57 ; !5 witness not to answer . 17:00:00 6 to answer, not because I believe the question i • 7 6 MR. BULCHIS: Same instruction . 17 :00 :02 7 proper. Clearly it does not call for privileg :57: 7 Q. Did you discuss with anyone other than Ms. 17:00 :15 8 communications just simply to ask what ri fa rt . 16 : :38 8 Magerus the decision not to pursue patent protection for 17 :00 :17 9 attorney had, but in view of counsel's t to my 16 :57:42 9 the constant delay work that you had done at Synopsys? 17 :00 :2 1 10 client for 100 or 200 million dollars if he an th 16 :57:46 10 MR. EDELMAN : To the extent that question 17:00 :27 11 question . I will instruct him nott3p~n 16 :57:49 11 calls for discussions with counsel, I would have the 17:00 :29 12 MR. EDELMAN: visjy the comment 16:57:51 12 same objection . To the extent it calls for discussions 17 :00 :32 13 was a sarcastic comme . ' n res to y ur paranoia and 16:57:53 13 not with counsel or not under the supervision of 17 :00 :35 14 apparently your client' aranoia, a its very dear 16 :57:58 14 counsel, I would permit the question . 17:00:3 9 15 on the record wh t it as . It's ve 1ear th at th e 16:58:01 15 A. I believe there were discussions about this, 17:00 :42 16 ques tion call r'u'e ation. It does not 16:58:04 16 yes . 17 :00 :44 17 call for wh prior art the-a ttorn ey had . It calls for 16:58:06 17 Q. And that was what you testified to earlier, 17 :00:4 5 18 what was g n to the a' rney . And basic Hombook law 16:58:10 18 or do you recall anything else? 17 :00 :46 19 will tell you aged question . 16:58:16 19 A. I do not recall where the information that I 17 :00 :52 20 MR. RILEY: Okay, Ed, just so th e record is 16 :58:17 20 testified earlier to came from for sure . 17:00 :55 21 dear, I intended to ask a se ries of questions about 16:58:19 21 Q. And just to be clear, so we can move on, the 17 :01 :00 22 what prior art was brought to the a ttention of th e 16 :58:22 22 information you're referring to is that someone -- and 17 :01 :03 23 lawyer who was pre paring the patent applications, but 16:58:26 23 you don't recall who that was -• told you that Synopsys 17 :01 :06 24 given your objections I take it that you would object to 16 :58:30 24 would not pursue patent protection for any aspect of the 17 :01 :09 25 the en tire series of questions . 16 :58:33 25 constant delay work you had performed because they did 17 :01 :14 174 176

7 (Pages 173 to 176 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 12964913-eele-435a -b679-f6eel1`4810cc CONFIDENTIA L

1 not want to share the ownership of that patent with IBM? 17 :01 : 16 1 A. I don't recall for certain, but I assume it 17 :03 :55 . : Same objection to the extent 17 :01: I9 2 was Narendra Shenoy, 17:04 2 MR. EDEELMAN :02 1 3 that calls for communication with an attorney . 17:01:20 3 Q. Did Mr. Shenoy, either through words or some 17 :04:08 4 Q. I'm sorry, your answer? 17:01:24 4 other communication, indicate to you that this Exhibit 17 :04:12 5 A. That's correct. 17:01 :25 5 27 was in some way confiden tial? 17:04 :16 6 MR. BULCHIS: Mr. Riley, just to clarify one 17 :01 :26 6 A. No . 17:04;2 1 7 thing , we do not object, and I would not instruct the 17:01 :28 7 Q . Did you believe it was confidential ? 17:04 :22 8 witness not to answer the ques tion as to his knowledge 17 :01:30 8 A. No . 17 :04:23 9 did the patent examiner handling the applica tion have 17 :01:35 9 Q . Why? 17:04:24 10 Exhibit 27 in his possession . 17 :01:38 10 A . Because they were going to publish it . 17 :04:24 11 Q. Can you answer that question? 17:01:43 11 MR. BULCHIS : Just to clarify , it's my 17 :05:30 12 A . Can you repeat the question ? 17:01 :44 12 understanding all of this testimony about Exhibit 27 is 17 :05:3 1 13 Q. To your knowledge , did the patent attorney 17: 01 :46 13 not being bound separately with the testimony of Exhibit 17 ;05 :3 4 14 who was handling the application have Exhibit 27 or some 17 :01:48 14 22 and 24 . 17:05:37 15 version of Exhibit 27 in her possession ? 17:01 : 53 15 MR . RILEY: That's my understanding ; is 17 :05:38 16 MR. EDELMAN : To the extent that question 17 :01 : 57 16 correct? 17:05: 17 comes from communication with counsel , I would caution 17 :01:59 17 MR . EDELMAN : I'm not sure I foilr" at. 7 Q5 F0 18 the witness not to answer . 17:02 :00 18 MR . RILEY : The court permi tted us' m e .; .,17 .05:45 19 MR . BULCHIS : You may answer the question . 17:02:02 19~' forward with the discussions of Exh' 22 an, $ under 17:05:47 20 A . I don't remember. 17:02:04 20 the provision that they would be pa bot d , not 17 :05:51 21 Q. The same question with regard to the white 17 :02 :04 21 given to the witness, and to revieis 6 17:05 :55 22 paper, which is Ex hibit 24. Do you know whether or not 17 :02:10 22 court, and I think the qu n, vV " h a ve good 17 :05:58 23 Ms. Magerus or anyone else working on the patent 17 :02:16 23 question, are we trea the pope , hibit 27, as the 17 :06:03 24 application had the white paper, Exhibit 24, in their 17:02 :18 24 same ? 17 :06:08 25 possession ? 17:02:23 25 MR. ED ess the answer to that is 17 :06 :09 177 179

1 MR . EDELMAN : Same objection . 17:02:23 1 how doh .,. with designation are treated under 17 :06:13 2 A. I don't remember . 17:02:27 2 m aces, Im not sure I know the answer to 17:06:15 3 Q. With regard to Exhibit 27, when you left 17 :02:28 that, b .can ore that and get an answer to that. 17:06:19 4 Synopsys, did you take any version of Exhibit 27 with 17 :02:39 (E 'ij of confidential session .) 17 :07:11 5 you to Magma? 17:02:4 6 6 A. No. 17 :02:47 7 Q. Did you subsequen tly come Into possession of 17402:4 7 7 8 Exhibit 27? 17 :02:51 8 9 A . Yes . 17 :02:54 9 10 Q. And when did you come to possess Exhi it 27 54 --t 10 11 after you left Synopsys? 11 12 A. I acquired It in '98, in spring of '98 . rte,;. 1703 :01 12 13 Q. And how did you come to acquL it in they; `103:14 13 14 spring of 1998? 17 16 14 15 A. Synopsys sent it to me . . i03 :17 15 16 Q. And do you know whj* 5yrinpsysse ou? 17 :03:19 16 17 A . To review the papqri add additi nal authors, 17 :03:24 17 18 and get It re ady for publicaton to redraft-4he papers . 17:03:29 18 19 Q. So you received a copy,;rf.Ext 27 from 17:03:33 19 20 Synopsys in the spring of 1998 as part of the effo rt to 17 :03:38 20 21 resubmit the paper for publication with Kudva and Shenoy 17 :03:42 21 22 as additional autho rs, correct? 17 :03:49 22 23 A . That's correct. 17:03:51 23 24 Q. Do you know who sent the paper to you from 17 :03:52 24 25 Synopsys ? 17 :03 :55 25 178 180

B (Pages 177 to 180) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 12964913-eele-435a-b679-f6ee1f4810cc 1 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 28 .) 17 :07 :11 1 A. Yes . 17 :10:13 2 MR . RILEY: Exhibit 28 is Bates stamped Magma 17 :07 :12 2 Q . You also had a copy of the 1991 Sutherland 17 :10 :14 3 15342 through 15434, and it is a copy of a patent 17 :07 :26 3 paper; is that correct? 17:M- 0 4 application which gave rise to the '446 patent that 17 :07:41 4 A. Yes. 17:10:20 5 Issued to Magma. 17:07 :51 5 Q . Did you have anything else that you -- 17 :10 :21 6 Q . Dr . van Ginneken, there is a signature on the 17:07 :55 6 A . Yes . I had the bigger thing that Sutherland 17 :10 :25 7 second page of an attorney at Pillsbury Madison Sutro, 17 :08 :00 7 handed out, and I had Venkat's paper . 17:10:2 7 8 . Arnold de Guzman. Do you remember Mr. de Guzman? 17 :08 :05 8 Q . So by "bigger thing," what you 're referring 17:10 :32 9 A. I'm not sure that I remember -- that I met 17:08 :12 9 to is the binder of about 100 pages that Mr . Sutherland 17 :10:34 10 him in person. 17 :08 :15 10 gave to you when he met and did a presentation? 17:10 :39 11 Q . Did you meet Mr. Jakopin? 17 :08 :16 11 A. Yes. 17 :10 :43 12 A. Yes . 17:08 :19 12 Q. And the Venkat paper is the 1993 paper; is 17:10:43 13 Q. How did you meet Mr. Jakopln? 17 :08 :20 13 that correct? 17:10:49 14 A. I met Mr . Jakopln at Magma In order to work 17 :08:22 14 A. Yes. 17 :10 :5 0 15 on the patent application . 17:08 :28 15 Q. Any other documents that you used? 17 :10 :5 3 16 Q. And did you provide Mr. Jakopin with any 17 :08 :30 16 A . I used Mead and Conway, the book. I used the 17 :10:55 17 documents that he or others working with him could use 17 :08 :36 17 book Glasser and Dobberpuhl . 17 :11 :01 18 In connection with the preparation of the patent 17 :08 :40 18 Q . Did you use anything else ? 17 :11 :10 19 application? 17 :08 :44 19 A . No, I think thats it. 17 :11 :1 8 20 A. Yes . 17 :08 :46 20 Q. So in preparing the patent application , you 17 :11 :19 21 Q. What did you provide Mr . Jakopln? 17 :08:46 21 did not refer to any documents or materials at all from 17:11 :21 22 A. I gave Mr . Jakopin the Magma methodology 17 :08 :50 22 Synopsys, correct? 17 :11 :26 23 document . 17 :08 :53 23 A. That's correct . 17 :11 :2 7 24 Q. The Magma methodology document was what? 17 :08 :55 24 Q. What you referred to was in the public 17 :11 :27 25 A. It was a paper that described the overall 17 :08 :58 2 5 domain, correct? 17 :11 :31 181 183

1 methodology plan for the Magma tools . 17:09 :03 1 A. Correct . 17 :11 :32 2 Q . Did you give Mr . Jakopin anything else? 17 :09:05 2 Q. If I could ask you to go back to Exhibit 1 . 17 :11 :32 3 A. I'm not sure, but I think I gave him 17 :09 :14 3 Exhibit I is your declaration . 17 :12 :09 4 Sutherland's paper and Grodstein and Lehman's paper . 17:09 :17 4 A. Yes . 17 :12 :28 5 Q . Did you give Mr . Jakopin anything at all from 17 :09 :24 5 Q. Referring to paragraph 8, the declaration 17 :12 :28 6 Synopsys? 17 :09 :28 6 reads, "In early 1996, as part of my job to research and 17 :12:45 7 A. No. 17:09 :29 7 explore new product ideas for Synopsys, I conceived of 17 :12 :50 8 Q . Did you work on the actual drafting of the 17:09 :29 8 the idea of creating an electronic design automation 17 :12 :53 9 application? 17 :09 :33 9 ('EDA') product that would use the concept of fixed 17 :12 :57 10 A. Yes. 17 :09 :34 10 timing." 17:13 :02 11 Q . What did you do? 17 :09 :35 11 What is your understanding of the term "I 17 :13 :04 12 A. I wrote a lot of text of It. 17:09 :36 12 conceived"? 17:13 :07 13 Q . And did you do that at work or at home or -- 17 :09 :39 13 A. The idea first originated at that point . 17 :13:1 0 14 A. At work . 17 :09:42 14 Q. And so when you say, as you do in other 17 :13 :18 15 Q . And what did you use to prepare that part of 17 :09 :43 15 places, that you conceived of an invention you mean the 17 :13 :20 16 the application? 17 :09:48 16 -- you arrived at the idea for the invention ; is that 17 :13 :26 17 A. You mean what documents did I use? 17 :09 :48 17 correct? 17 :13 :29 18 Q. Yes. 17:09:52 18 A. Yes . 17 :13 :29 19 A. I used those same documents that I prepared 17 :09 :53 19 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to Exhibit 17 :13 :30 20 to Mr. Jakopin . 17:09 :58 20 5, please . Turning to claim 49 where it states what is 17 :13 :37 21 Q . So let's go through, you believe you had a 17 :09 :59 21 claimed is -- and Dr. van Ginneken, you're familiar with 17 :14 :08 22 copy of the 1995 Grodstein paper, correct -- 17 :10 :02 22 the concept of claims in a patent, correct? 17 :14 :1 6 23 A. Yes. 17:10:05 23 A. Somewhat, yeah . 17 :14:2 0 24 Q . -- which you used . You believe you also had 17 :10 :05 24 Q . You worked on patents when you were at IBM? 17 :14 :21 25 a copy and used the 1995 Lehman paper; is that right? 17 :10 :09 25 A. Yes. 17 :14:23 182 18 4

40 (Pages 181 to 184) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 I Q. And it states what is claimed is, 49, "An 17 :14 :23 1 the step of computing the input capacitance of each 17 :17 :1 8 2 automated method of modeling the delay of the cells of 17 :14 :32 2 cell, the input capacitance being computed as the 17 :17:2 2 3 an integrated circuit comprising the steps of: 17:14:34 3 capacitive output load of said cell divided by the 17 :17:25 4 associating an initial gain value with each cell that 17 :14:38 4 gain." 17:17:30 5 has been initially selected for inclusion in the 17 :14:42 5 Did Mr. Kudva contribute to the conception of 17 :17:30 6 integrated circuit ; computing the initial intended delay 17 :14 :44 6 that invention? 17 :17 :33 7 value of each cell based on the initial intended gain 17 :14 :49 7 MR. EDELMAN : Objection . Calls for claim 17 :17 :35 8 value ." 17 :14 :53 8 construction and expert testimony and a legal 17 :17 :37 9 And my question is, did Kudva contribute to 17 :14 :56 9 conclusion. 17:17:3 9 10 the conception of that invention? 17 :14:59 10 A. Well, to the extent its dependent on claim 17 :17:4 5 11 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, calls for a legal 17 :15 :03 11 49, yes, and to the extent that he identified the 17 :17 :59 12 conclusion . Calls for claim construction. Calls for 17:15:04 12 concept of gain as being relevant . 17:18:10 13 expert testimony . 17:15:08 13 Q. If I could direct your attention back to your 17:18:14 14 A. He contributed by identifying the paper, by 17 :15 :10 14 declaration, which is Exhibit 1 . In paragraph 1 you 17 :18 :42 15 Sutherland's paper which describes this method . 17 :15 :21 15 state : In 1995 I was hired by Synopsys, Inc . to work in 17 :19 :06 16 Q . And so your answer is yes, he did contribute 17 :15 :25 16 the development of logic synthesis and related 17 :19:1 0 17 to the conception? 17 :15 :27 17 technologies . 17 :19 :1 3 18 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, calls for a legal 17 :15 :28 18 Did Synopsys ever indicate to you that they 17 :19 :1 5 19 conclusion as to whether contributing a paper is 17 :15 :30 19 were hiring you because of the expertise that you 17 :19 :1 8 20 contributing to conception . Also calls for claim 17:15 :32 20 developed at IBM? 17 :19 :2 1 21 construction and expert testimony. 17 :15 :36 21 A. Yes. I mean, not in an explicit manner that 17 :19 :3 1 22 A. Yes . 17 :15 :37 22 way, but, you know, it was important for them to have 17 :19 :37 23 Q. With regard to claim 50, it says, 'The 17 :15 :38 23 somebody who had experience in this field . Also, the 17 :19 :44 24 automated method of claim 49, wherein the initial 17 :15 :41 24 purpose of Synopsys -- for Synopsys hiring me was, in 17 :19 :5 1 25 intended gain value is determined such that the 17 :15 :45 25 part, a part of the negotiation process between Synopsys 17 :19 :56 185 187

1 variation in the variable component of the initial 17 :15 :48 1 and IBM . I believe it was the intention of Synopsys to 17:20 :03 - 2 intended delay is the same for all the cells in the 17 :15 :51 2 weaken IBM's negotiation position by hiring away 17 :20 :12 3 circuit is minimized." Did Kudva contribute to the 17 :15 :54 3 employees. 17:20 :19 4 conception of that Invention? 17 :16 :01 4 Q . And what led you to believe that? 17:20:2 0 5 MR. EDELMAN . Objection, vague . Calls for a 17 :16:01 5 A. TBM was very concerned about Synopsys hiring 17 :20 :24 6 legal conclusion as to "contributed ." Calls for claim 17 :16 :05 6 employees . 17:20:3 1 7 construction . Calls for expert testimony . 17:16 :07 7 Q . Why did you leave IBM? 17 :20 :34 8 A. Yes . The same sense as claim 49 . 17 :16:12 8 A. Because Synopsys offered a good salary. 17 :20 :37 9 Q . And then in claim 51, "The automated method 17:16 :17 9 Q . So you were offered more money at Synopsys? 17 :20 :4 1 10 of claim 49, wherein the associated gain value of one or 17 :16 :20 10 A. Yes. 17:20 :4 5 11 more cells are reduced to compress the associated 17 :16:26 11 Q . Were you offered stock options at Synopsys? 17 :20:45 12 relative delay value of said cells to assist in 17:16 :29 12 A. Some . Not a large amount . 17 :20 :48 13 satisfying predetermined timing constraints." 17 :16 :33 13 Q . Paragraph 3 states, "I know of no reason why 17:20 :51 14 Did Kudva contribute to the conception of 17:16 :39 14 the agreement is not valid and fully enforceable against 17:21 :00 15 that invention? 17 :16 :41 15 me." Is that based on any research that you have done 17 :21 :0 3 16 MR . EDELMAN : Same objections. Calls for a 17:16 :42 16 independently into California law and how -- what 17 :21 :0 7 17 legal conclusion . 17 :16 :45 17 governs an employment contracts? 17 :21 :1 1 18 A. Only to the extent that it depends on claim 17 :16:47 18 MR, EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 17:21 :13 19 49. 17:16 :53 19 A. No . 17:21 :14 20 Q. And then claim 53 that states : The automated 17 :16 :53 20 Q. That's just based on your knowledge as a 17 :21 :14 21 method of claim 52, further including the step of 17 :16:58 21 layperson? 17 :21 :1 8 22 computing the input capacitance of each cell, the input 17 :17 :03 22 A. That's based on my limited knowledge, yeah . 17:21 :20 23 capacitance being computed as the capacitive load -- 17 :17 :07 23 Q . So the record is clear, you have undertaken 17 :21 :24 24 output, excuse me . Let me reread . 17 :17:11 24 no investigation of the California law governing the 17 :21 :26 25 "The automated claim of 52, further including- 17 :17 :15 25 proprietary information and inventions.. . 17 :21 :3 1 186 188

41 (Pages 185 to 188 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 If6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague, to the extent 17 :21 :36 1 might have participated in that probably were Dan Brand, 17 :24 :27 2 It doesn't distinguish between the witness and his 17 :21 :37 2 Leon Stok, perhaps Louise Trevillyan, 1724:3 1 3 counsel . 17:21 :42 3 Q. And were these discussions inspired by the 17 :24 :39 4 A. I have not. 17 :21 :42 4 observation you made earlier about certain circuit 17 :24 :43 5 Q . In paragraph 5 you state that "Neither the 17 :21 :43 5 designers assuming that the delays of the circuit were 17 :24 :48 6 patents, patent applications and research reports in 17:22 :06 6 constant and known? 17 :24:52 7 which I was involved at IBM, nor the inventions or 17 :22 :09 7 A. No. I believe these were two different 17 :24 :55 8 improvements listed in Exhibit A to the agreement, 17 :22 :13 8 occasions . 17:24 :57 9 disclose the inventions ultimately claimed in U .S. 17:22 :16 9 Q. Well, tell me about the occasion . 17:24 :57 10 patent '446 or the 438 (hereinafter collectively 17 :22 :20 10 A. Which one? 17 :25 :0 1 11 referred to as the patents) . In fact, I did not 17 :22 :26 11 Q . We've already talked about circuit designers 17:25 :02 12 conceive of any of the inventions disclosed in the 17 :22 :29 12 and the assumptions that they make. 17 :25 :05 13 patents before I joined Synopsys ." 17 :22 :32 13 A. Yeah . 17 :25 :07 14 Dr, van Ginneken, before you had joined 17 :22 :35 14 Q . But there was another occasion where this was 17 :25 :10 15 Synopsys, you had in fact worked on the problems that 17 :22 :37 15 discussed at IBM ; is that correct? 17 :25 :1 2 16 are addressed by the constant delay methodology, hadn't 17 :22 :42 16 A. Well, the two occasions that we're talking 17 :25 :14 17 you? 17 :22 :45 17 about, one is discussion with circuit designers . 17:25 :16 18 A . Yes. 17:22 :46 18 Another discussion with other logic synthesis 17 :25 :20 19 Q . Earlier you mentioned that constant delay was 17 :22 :46 19 researchers at IBM . The discussion with circuit 17 :25 :23 20 used and discussed in other areas of logic synthesis and 17 :22 :51 20 designers, circuit designers whose constant delay as a 17:25 :30 21 EDA . Were you aware of that work before you joined 17 :22 :55 21 method, you know, just like Sutherland said, were 17 :25 :37 22 Synopsys? 17 :22 :59 22 back-of-the-envelope design of circuits . And I was 17:25 :41 23 A ., Yes . 17 :23 :00 23 surprised to see that these people, you know, simply 17:25 :45 24 Q . Had you ever thought about -- 17 :23 :00 24 assign delays, and they have like a table of delays for 17 :25:48 25 A . Some of it anyway . 17 :23 :03 25 simple circuit elements in their head . It's not the 17 :25 :54 189 191

I Q. I'm sorry, some of it was . Had you ever, 17 :23 :04 1 circuit elements that are typically used, there are not 17 :25 :58 2 while you were at IBM , ever had discussions about using 17 :23 :08 2 that many of them, inverter buffers, and/or, couple of 17 :26 :01 3 a concept such as constant delay to b ridge logic and 17:23 :11 3 AOIs. 17:26 :0 2 4 physical domains? 17 :23 :15 4 And so circuit designers know these numbers 17 :26 :0 6 5 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 17:23:16 5 and they design with these numbers and they would white 17 :26:1 3 6 A . I don't think we discussed the concept of 17 :23 :18 6 board circuits on them and calculate delays like that, 17 :26 :1 7 7 constant delay as a matter of bridging logical and 17 :23 :20 7 which struck me as strange because these are the same 17:26:22 8 physical domain. Using constant delay as a purely logic 17 :23:23 8 people that complain incessantly about the lack of 17 :26 :2 7 9 synthesis model was at one point discussed , but I don 't 17 :23 :31 9 accuracy in logic synthesis tools while the models In 17 :26 :31 10 believe that, you know, that that was really a 17 :23 :36 10 logic synthesis tools are, you know, they're not very 17:26 :34 11 concep tion there of a clearly executable idea. 17 :23 :44 11 complex, but they're a lot more complex than just 17 :26 :40 12 Q . So there wasn't a conception of a clearly 17 :23 :52 12 constants. 17:26 :42 13 executable idea, but there was some discussion of that 17 :23 :55 13 Q. And then you had other discussions with the 17 :26 :44 14 idea at IBM , correct? 17 :23 :59 14 logic synthesis team at IBM about constant delay that 17 :26 :48 15 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 17:24 :00 15 were separate from these discussions you had with 17:26 :54 16 Q . I'm sorry? 17:24 :02 16 circuit designers? 17:26:57 17 A. Yes. 17:24 :02 17 A. Yes. 17 :26 :57 18 Q . And who participated in that discussion of, 1 17:24 :03 18 Q. Tell me about those discussions. 17 :26 :57 19 think you said, a constant delay synthesis; is that 17 :24:08 19 A. Well, I don't recall a whole lot about these 17 :27:0 0 20 correct? 17:24 :13 20 discussions, but there were discussions of how different 17 :27 :02 21 A . Well, application of constant delay within 17 :24:13 21 delay curves of different library elements, you know, 17 :27:0 9 22 logic synthesis, yes. 17 :24 :15 22 they -- what they look like, how they create problems 17 :27 :18 23 Q . Who participated in that discussion with you 17 :24 :17 23 because they're not uniform, how they - how perhaps 17 :27 :24 24 at IBM? 17:24 :19 _ 24 they could be combined into a more delay model that 17:27 :30 25 A. I don't dearly recall, but the people who 17 :24:20 25 implies switching from one delay element or from one 17 :27 :37 190 192

42 (Pages 189 to 192) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 I cell to the other. Sort of a composite delay model, if 17 :27 :43 1 the term "invention ." 17 :31 :4 8 2 you will, 17:27 :49 2 A. I believe I had an invention at that time. 17:31 :52 3 Q. So while you had these discussions at IBM 17 :27:50 3 Q. Which was? 17:31:54 4 about constant delay, I think you said you had no clear 17 :27:54 4 A. Which was the ideas that I set out in this 17 :31:55 5 idea about how to use constant delay? 17 :27:59 5 meeting were basically a justification for using 17 :32:06 6 A. So this was one discussion . Another 17 :28 :02 6 constant delay as described by Grodstein and Lehman in 17 :32 :12 7 discussion is we used constant delay in structural 17:28 :04 7 logic synthesis even if the -- you do not make an 17 :32 :16 8 optimizations that didn't use -- It involved mapped 17 :28 :09 8 assumption of having a continuously sizable library. 17 :32 :2 2 9 logic but which were just circuits consisting of nand 17 :28 :12 9 Q, So at this point in March of 1996, what you 17 :32:2 6 10 gates, and nand gates delay models are very simple . 17:28:16 10 conceived of as your invention was using Lehman and 17:32:33 11 They just depend on the number of inputs, and you can 17 :28 :20 11 Grodstein and applying that to logic synthesis, even in 17 :32 :35 12 sort of see that as a constant delay model . Sorry to 17 :28:24 12 the absence of a continuously sized library? 17:32:42 13 interrupt. 17:28:30 13 A. Right. 17:32:45 14 Q . I think you said in response to my earlier 17 :28:36 14 Q . But Dr. van Ginneken, isn't it true that 17 :32 :47 15 question that while these discussions took place at IBM 17 :28 :37 15 Grodstein proved his concept using noncontinuously sized 17 :32 :54 16 on constant delay, you didn't have a clear idea that you 17 :28 :41 16 libraries in his paper? 17:33:0 4 17 could implement using constant delay? 17 :28 :45 17 MR. EDELMAN ; Objection, lack of foundation, 17:33;07 18 A. Yeah . I think what was missing is sort of 17 :28:48 18 vague and ambiguous . 17:33 :1 0 19 the physical justification for these constant delay 17 :28 :51 19 A. No, I don't believe that's true. 17:33 :1 1 20 models, as Grodstein and Lehman explain how they justify 17 :28 :53 20 Q. He assumed continuously sized libraries? 17 :33 :13 21 it by assuming a continuous sizable library . 17:29 :01 21 A. Yes . 17:33 :1 6 22 Q. So having those two articles, Grodstein and 17 :29:05 22 Q. And didn't he discuss in his paper that in 17 :33 :17 23 Lehman, were critical to your conception? 17 :29:10 23 order to apply that in the real world you would have to 17 :33 :19 24 A. Yes. - 17 :29 :12 24 bridge it to discrete libraries? 17 :33 :22 25 Q . In paragraph 12 you write, "In early 1996, I 17 :29 :13 25 MR . EDELMAN : Same objections . 17:33 :2 6 193 195

1 participated in a meeting with other Synopsys personnel 17 :30 :03 1 A. I don't recall that. 17 :33 :26 2 to discuss Ideas for Synopsys's next generation 17 :30:07 2 Q . In paragraph 13 you state, "During a 17 :33 :28 3 synthesis product (code named NGSS or 'Synzilla') . 17 :30 :10 3 subsequent meeting in 1996 I gave a further presentation 17:33 :49 4 During this meeting I set out the basic concept for my 17 :30:15 4 to Synopsys personnel concerning the inventions I 17 :33:5 2 5 fixed timing inventions . I was directed to research the 17 :30 :21 5 developed while employed at Synopsys." When did this 17:33 :55 6 issue further and report my findings at a later . 17 :30 :25 6 meeting take place? 17:33 :59 7 meeting ." 17:30:28 7 A. I believe this refers to the April meeting at 17 :34 :00 8 When was this meeting in early 1996? 17 :30:30 8 IBM . 17:34 :1 8 9 A. I believe this is the March 5th meeting . 17 :30:33 9 Q. So it would be more accurate to say in 17 :34:1 9 10 Q . Now, at that point, when you say that you set 17 :30 :36 10 paragraph 13 that during a subsequent meeting In 1996 -- 17 :34 :2 5 11 out the basic concept for my fixed timing inventions, 17:30 :44 11 I'm sorry . Paragraph 13 would be more accurate if it 17 :34:3 2 12 are you saying that as of March 5th you had an invention 17:30:47 12 read, "During a subsequent meeting in April of 1996, 1 17 :34 :36 13 or you had a concept for an invention that you later 17 :30 :50 13 gave a further presentation to Synopsys and IBM 17 :34 :40 14 conceived? 17 :30 :57 14 personnel concerning the inventions I developed while 17 :34 :45 15 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 17 :30 :57 15 employed at Synopsys as part of the IBM-Synopsys joint 17 :34 :49 16 Calls for expert testimony. 17 :31 :01 16 venture," correct? 17 :34:5 4 17 A. I think the inventions evolved over time . 1 17:31 :03 17 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, compound, vague and 17 :34 :55 18 think there was some beginning of an invention there, 17 :31 :11 18 ambiguous. 17:34 :5 7 19 and I think that it evolved and improved and, you know, 17 :31 :15 19 A. Yes. 17:34 :59 20 It wasn't a constant one shot deal . 17 :31:24 20 Q . The statement I made is more accurate than 17 :34:5 9 21 Q. Right . But as of March 5th, did you have 17 :31 :27 21 the first sentence that appears in -- 17:35 :0 2 22 what you believed was an invention or were you simply on 17 :31 :32 22 A. Contains more information . There is nothing 17 :35 :05 23 the road to the invention having developed a concept? 17 :31 :38 23 incorrect. 17:35:08 24 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, asked and answered, 17 :31 :43 24 Q . I'm sorry? 17 :35:09 25 vague and ambiguous . Calls for a legal conclusion as to 17:31 :45 25 A . Contains more information. There is nothing 17:35 :10 194 196

43 (Pages 193 to 196) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Incorrect . 17 :35 :12 1 in IBM's records . 17:37 :57 2 Q. The information that Is In paragraph 13 is 17:35 :13 2 A. I'm not sure exactly what is in IBM's 17:37 :38 3 not Incorrect, It just doesn't contain as much 17:35 :16 3 records. 17:38 :0 1 4 information as I provided? 17 :35:19 4 Q. The white paper contains a documentation of 17:38:01 5 A . Right. 17 :35 :20 5 your inventions, correct?. 17:38:05 6 Q. And then It states, "During the meeting 1 17 :35 :21 6 A. Yes. 17 :38:09 7 discussed how Synopsys could implement the invention In 17 :35 :26 7 Q. And the white paper is a record of IBM, 17 :38 :09 8 its tools ." Would it be more accurate to state that 17:35 :31 8 correct? 17 :38 :1 2 9 during the meeting you discussed how Synopsys and IBM 17:35 :35 9 A. Yes. 17 :38 :12 10 could implement the Inventions In their tools? 17 :35:38 10 Q . So at least to the extent that this refers to 17:38 :12 11 A. Well, "their tools" suggest multiple tools, 17 :35 :41 11 the white paper, it refers to both Synopsys and IBM's 17 :38 :1 5 12 and there was only one tool to be developed jointly with 17 :35 :44 12 records? 17 :38 :18 13 Synopsys and IBM . 17 :35:49 13 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 17 :38 :19 14 Q. You used the plural here, its tools . Should 17 :35 :50 14 A. Yes. 17 :38 :2 0 15 that just be a singular "tool"? 17 :35 :56 15 MR . EDELMAN : Calls for conclusion as to 17 :38 :2 1 16 A. Well, that depends on what you consider a 17 :36:01 16 whose record that is, 17 :38 :23 17 tool, whether you consider a placement algorithm a tool, 17 :36 :03 17 Q. In paragraph 19 there's a reference to your 17 :39 :0 7 18 or whether you only consider an entire system a tool . 17 :36:07 18 performance review . And the review reads, last 17 :39 :10 19 Q. When you signed this did you have In mind any 17 :36 :13 19 sentence, one year ago Synzilla was an idea in your 17 :39:1 8 20 particular conception of what tools meant here? 17 :36:16 20 head . It is currently a staffed project. It has met 17:39 :23 21 A. I think tools here means the algorithms to be 17 :36 :19 21 aggressive milestones and schedules, and that has strong 17 :39:2 7 22 Implemented In the NGSS system . 17 :36:27 22 support from outside partners. Do you know what was 17:39 :30 23 Q. And so then IYwould be correct to state, 17 :36 :31 23 meant in your performance review as a reference to 17 :39 :34 24 "During the meeting I discussed how Synopsys and IBM 17 :36 :33 24 "outside partners"? 17 :39:3 6 25 could implement the inventions in their tools"? 17 :36 :37 25 MR . EDELMAN : Objection . Calls for 17 :39 :37 197 199

1 A. Uh-huh . 17 :36 :42 1 speculation . 17 :39 :39 2 Q . I'm sorry? 17 :36 :42 2 A. I believe that refers to IBM. 17 :39 :40 3 A. Yes. 17:36 :44 3 Q. Did you believe that IBM strongly supported 17 :39 :44 4 Q. And then the next sentence states, "During 17 :36:44 4 the work that you and Mr. Kudva were doing on constant 17:39 :47 5 the course of this mee ti ng , I was successful In 17 :36 :47 5 delay? 17:39:5 2 6 convincing others at Synopsys that the company should 17 :36:51 6 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation . 17 :39 :52 7 consider redirecting its efforts toward Implementing 17 :36:54 7 Assumes facts not in evidence . 17 :39 :55 8 these inventions ." It would be more accurate, wouldn't 17 :36 :56 8 A. Yes . 17 :39 :56 9 it, Dr. van Ginneken, to state that "During the course 17 :37 :00 9 Q. Why? 17 :39 :57 10 of this meeting, I was successful in convincing others 17 :37:03 10 A. Because IBM had head count available for the 17 :39 :5 8 11 at IBM and Synopsys that the companies should consider 17:37 :06 11 project. 17:40 :06 12 redirecting their efforts toward implementing these 17 :37:11 12 Q. For the record, head count means other 17 :40:0 6 13 Inventions"? 17 :37 :14 13 engineers to help you? 17 :40 :08 14 A. Yes . 17 :37 :15 14 A. Yes. 17:40 :09 15 Q. And then In paragraph 14 you write, it Is my 17 :37:15 15 Q . In paragraph 22 there's a reference to the 17 :40:39 16 -- I'm sorry, the declaration reads, "It is my 17 :37:22 16 patent application which we've looked at earlier today, 17 :40:44 17 understanding that the conception of the inventions I 17 :37 :25 17 the patent application entitled "System and Method for 17 :40 :50 18 developed while a Synopsys employee Is thoroughly 17 :37 :27 18 Constant Delay Synthesis." And you write or you signed 17 :40:53 19 documented In Synopsys's records." In fact, It would be 17 :37:32 19 a declaration that reads, "All of the inventions 17 :40:57 20 more accurate to state that it is your understanding 17 :37:37 20 contained in this application were solely conceived by 17 :40 :59 21 that the conception of the inventions I developed while 17 :37:40 21 me at Synopsys." 17:41 :02 22 a Synopsys employee are thoroughly documented In IBM and 17 :37 :43 22 Would it be more accurate to state that "All 17 :41 :0 4 23 Synopsys's records, correct? 17 :37 :48 23 of the inventions contained in this application were 17:41 :06 24 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous, 17:37:50 24 solely conceived by me as part of a joint project 17 :41 :1 1 25 lack of foundation . Calls for speculation as to what's 17 :37 :52 25 between IBM and Synopsys"? 17 :41 :1 7 198 200

44 (Pages 197 to 200) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 17 :41 :20 1 considered as the cornerstone of the NGSS project was 17 ;58 :26 2 Calls for speculation . 17:41 :22 2 part of the IBM-Synopsys joint venture? 17 :58 :29 3 A. Yes . 17 :41 :24 3 MR. EDELMAN. Objection, vague and ambiguous 17 :58:33 4 MR . BULCHIS : Can we take a short break? 17 :41 :25 4 as to the term "more accurate ." 17:58:34 5 MR. RILEY: Sure. 17:41 :26 5 A. It's a more complete statement. 17:58 :3 6 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 17 :41 :29 6 Q. Excuse me . So it would be more complete to 17 :58:38 7 time now Is approximately 5 :41 p.m . 17 :41 :30 7 say that the fixed timing inventions were being 17 :58:41 8 (Recess .) 17 :55 :37 8 considered as the cornerstone of the NGSS project, that 17 :58 :45 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 17:55 :37 9 was part of the joint venture between Synopsys and IBM? 17 :58 :5 0 10 The time now Is approximately 5 :55 p .m ., and this Is the 17 :55 :39 10 A. Yes. 17 :58:53 11 beginning of tape No . 4 In the deposition of Lukas van 17 :55 :42 11 Q. Now, referring to paragraph 22, the sentence 17 :58:53 12 Glnneken. 17 :55:48 12 that I asked you about earlier, it says, "All of the 17 :59 :16 13 Q . Dr . van Ginneken, again referring to your 17 :55 :52 13 Inventions contained in this application were solely 17 :59 ;19 14 declaration, paragraph 15 states that constant delay 17 :55 :54 14 conceived by me at Synopsys ." And I believe we 17:59 :25 15 synthesis -- this is the quote that we discussed earlier 17 :56 :12 15 discussed earlier that it would be a more complete 17 :59 :28 15 from your Invention disclosure form -- "Constant delay 17 :56 :15 16 statement to say that they were conceived by you as part 17 :59 :30 17 synthesis Is an entirely different paradigm for delay 17 :56 :20 17 of the joint IBM-Synopsys joint venture, correct? 17 :59 :33 18 optimization ." And then skipping down, "Using this 17:56 :23 18 A. That's correct. 17:59 :3 7 19 philosophy, many common optimization algorithms, such as 17 :56 :25 19 Q. When you write that in the preceding sentence 17 :59 :37 20 mapping, retiming, can be reformulated in a much simpler 17:56 :31 20 that "it contained disclosure of my inventions for fixed 17:59 :42 21 form." 17 :56:39 21 timing, including use of fixed timing in relation to 17 :59 :47 22 When you wrote that, were you claiming to be 17 :56 :40 22 logic synthesis and placement, equal slack sizing, area 17 :59 :52 23 the sole Inventor of the application of constant delay 17 :56 :42 23 estimation, buffering, b€partitioning, iterative 17 :59 :58 24 synthesis to the mapping? 17:56 :47 24 placement, and net weights," and the next sentence says, 18 :00 :03 25 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, asked and answered, 17 :56 :50 25 "All of the inventions contained in this application," 18:00 :10 201 203

1 vague and ambiguous . 17 :56:52 1 were you referring to that list of inventions that I 18 :00:16 2 A. No. Constant delay synthesis . Constant 17 :56:55 2 justmentioned? -__ _ . 18 :00 :19 3 delay mapping is disclosed in the Grodstein and Lehman . 17:56:58 3 A. Yes, I was. 18 :00 :20 4 Q . Is retlming disclosed in Grodstein and 17 :57 :03 4 Q. And again, before you signed this, you had no 18:00:21 5 Lehman? 17 :57 :06 5 opportunity to review Exhibit 5 and examine the claims, 18 :00 :26 6 A. I don't believe it is . 17 :57 :08 6 correct? 18 :00:2 9 7 Q. Behavioral synthesis? 17:57 :09 7 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, mischaracterizes the 18 :00 :30 8 A. No. 17 :57 :12 8 testimony? 18:00 :31 9 Q. Delay In area optimization? 17 :57 :12 9 Q. Is that correct? 18 :00:32 10 A. Only for mapping . 17:57 :21 10 A. That is correct. 18:00:33 11 Q. And placement? 17 :57 :22 11 Q. And you understand that the claims of a 18 :00 :33 12 A. No. 17 :57:25 12 patent are what define the invention, you understand 18 :00 :41 13 Q . So when you represented that you were the 17:57 :26 13 that much about patents? 18 :00 :45 14 sole inventor,-you were referring to those matters which 17 :57 :31 14 A. Yes. .18 :00 :47 15 Grodstein and others had not already formulated the use 17 :57 :37 15 Q. And so you weren't given an opportunity to 18 :00 :47 16 of constant delay synthesis with; is that correct? 17:57:41 16 examine the claims disclosed in that patent application 18 :00 :51 17 A. Yes . 17:57 :44 17 before you signed the declaration, correct? 18 :00 :5 5 18 Q. Again, referring to paragraph 17, it says, 17:57 :45 18 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous 18 :00 :57 19 "In the constant delay synthesis disclosure, I 17 :57 :57 19 in terms of "given an opportunity ." By whom? 18 :00 :58 20 truthfully represent that the fixed timing inventions 17 :58 :01 20 A. Yes. 18 :01 :03 21 were being considered as the 'cornerstone' of the NGSS 17 :58 :04 21 Q. In paragraph 26, the sentence reads, Its the 18 :01 :03 22 project at Synopsys." 17 :58 :08 22 second full sentence, "Synopsys did not ever give me 18 :01 :36 23 Dr, van Ginneken, would it have been a more 17:58 :12 23 permission to take or use this documentation, or any of 18 :01 :40 24 accurate statement to say that the constant delay 17 :58 :15 24 the inventions described therein, for the benefit of 18 :01 :45 25 synthesis project that you were working on that was 17 :58 :21 .._ . 25 another company ." But Dr. van Ginneken, Isn't it true 18 :01 :48 202 204

45 (Pages 201 to 204 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 that you were given permission to publish those 18 :01 :55 1 A. Yes. 18 :06:07 2 inventions in the 1996 paper "Driving on the Left-hand 18 :01 :58 2 Q. And this is the white paper that you and Mr. 18:06:07 3 Side of the Performance Speedway"? 18 :02 :02 3 Kudva created, correct? 18 :06 :1 2 4 A. Yes. 18:02 :06 4 A. Yes. 18 :06 :14 5 Q . Dr. van Ginneken, when you came to Magma, did 18 :02:06 5 Q. So, again, it would be a more complete 18 :06 :14 6 you use any inventions that you allegedly conceived or 18 :02 :18 6 statement to refer to "at least one of the white papers 18 :06:16 1 7 developed at Synopsys which are not described in the 18 :02 :22 7 that I and Mr. Kudva had created for Synopsys and IBM," 18 :06 :2 0 8 paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side of the Performance 18 :02 :30 8 correct? 18 :06:2 5 9 Speedway," which is Exhibit 27? 18 :02 :33 9 A. Yes. 18:06 :2 6 10 A. I don't think so . 18 :02 :36 10 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 18 :06:27 11 Q. You're familiar with Exhibit 27, weren't you? 18:02 :37 11 Q . In paragraph 33 the paragraph reads, 18 :06 :52 12 A. Yes. 18:02 :42 12 "Beginning in 1997, Magma proceeded to extensively use 18 :06 :54 13 Q. And it's your testimony that in terms of the 18:02:42 13 the inventions and information described in the Synopsys 18:06:59 14 work that you did at Synopsys that you later drew on at 18 :02:45 14 draft patent application and confidential white paper in 18 :07 :02 15 Magma, Exhibit 27 is an adequate and complete 18 :02:50 15 order to create the patent applications that would 18 :07 :09 16 description of that work from Synopsys that you later 18 :02 :56 16 ultimately result in the issuance of the patents. And 18:07:1 2 17 used ; is that correct? 18 :02 :59 17 there, when you refer to Magma, you really just mean 18 :07 :19 18 A. Yeah, that's pretty complete . 18:03 :00 18 yourself, isn't that true, Dr. van Ginneken? 18 :07 :24 19 Q. Referring to paragraph 23, please, of your 18 :03 :02 19 A. Yes. 18:07 :2 8 20 declaration . There's a sentence that says "All of the 18:03 :38 20 Q. No one else at Magma -- none of its 18:07 :2 9 21 inventions contained in this application were solely 18 :03 :44 21 attorneys, its agents, or to your knowledge, anyone else 18 :07 :33 22 conceived by me ." Does the phrase "all of the 18 :03:46 22 knew that you were using any of the material that you 18 :07 :38 23 inventions" refer to the alleged inventions mentioned in 18:03 :49 23 had worked on at Synopsys in connection with patent 18 :07 :42 24 the preceding sentence, specifically the use of fixed 18 :04:00 24 applications at Magma , correct? 18 :07 :46 25 timing in relation to network slack, library independent 18 :04 :03 25 A. That's correct. 18 :07:4 9 205 207

1 optimization, mapping for delay, post mapping 18 :04 :08 1 Q. In paragraph 34, the declaration reads, "I do 18 :07:49 2 optimization, pin swapping, boundary moves, area 18 :04:13 2 not dispute that Magma incorporated Synopsys's invention 18 :08 :14 3 estimation, net weights, buffering, stretching, 18 :04:18 3 into Magma's product line and proceeded to use these 18 :08 :20 4 placement, partitioning, and final or discrete sizing? 18 :04 :24 4 inventions as a technical foundation for its products ." - 18 :08 :24 5 A . Yeah . It refers to that list . 18 :04 :32 5 Now, Dr. van Ginneken, It says you do not 18:08 :2 8 6 Q. Before you signed the declaration, were you 18 :04 :36 6 dispute. Are you stating In fact that Synopsys 18 :08 :30 7 given an opportunity to review the patent application 18 :04:39 7 inventions have in fact been incorporated into Magma's 18 :08 :34 B which is referred to in Exhibit 6 of paragraph 23 of 18 :04 :43 8 product line? 18 :08:3 9 9 your declaration entitled "Method for Achieving Timing 18 :04 :47 9 MR . EDELMAN : Objection. Document speaks for 18 :08:4 1 10 Closure of Digital Networks and Method for Area 18 :04:51 10 itself. 18 :08 :43 11 Optimization of Digital Networks Under Timing Closure"? 18 :04 :54 11 A. Well, I think that Magma products do include 18 :08 :46 12 A. No. 18:04 :58 12 outward methods that are described in the Synopsys 18 :08 :5 8 13 Q. So you weren't given an opportunity to review 18 :04 :59 13 document, yes . 18 :09 :0 2 14 the specific claims describing the invention disclosed 18 :05 :02 14 Q. And that would be, as you described earlier, 18 :09 :03 15 In that patent application? 18 :05 :06 15 the constant delay methodology? 18 :09:0 5 16 A. Thats correct. 18 :05 :08 16 A. Yes . 18 :09:07 17 Q . Turning to paragraph 30, the last sentence 18:05 :08 17 Q . But as you sit here today, you don't know how 18 :09 :08 18 says, "I also used for Magma's benefit my knowledge of 18 :05 :42 18 Magma's products actually operate; is that correct? 18 :09:18 19 the information contained in at least one of the white 18 :05 :46 19 MR. EDELMAN. Objection, vague and ambiguous . 18:09:2 1 20 papers that I had created for Synopsys," and I believe 1 18 :05:50 20 A. I left Magma one or two years ago . I do not 18 :09:2 3 21 asked you this question earlier, you only created one 18 :05 :53 21 know what the current state of Magma's products Is . 18:09 :27 22 white paper for Synopsys; is that correct? 18 :05:57 22 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 36 you refer to a 18 :09:3 1 23 A . I think that's correct, but €t's possible 18:06:00 23 letter from Pillsbury dated August 18, 1997. At the end 18 :09 :56 24 that there were multiple drafts ordered. 18 :06 :03 24 of that paragraph you write, "In addition, at or about 18 :10 :04 25 Q. Multiple drafts of the same paper? 18 :06:05 25 the time these statements were made, Magma already was 18 :10:08 206 208

46 (Pages 205 to 208) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b934861 6b443 1 using the Inventions and information from the 18 :10:11 1 others were involved . 18:13 :33 2 confidential patent applications drafted for Synopsys, 18 :10 :14 2 Q. Dr. van Ginneken, in the discussions that 18 :13 :37 3 (and information contained in at least one confidential 18 :10 :20 3 took place, either during lunch or at any point during 18 :13 :40 4 Synopsys white paper) ." 18 :10 :23 4 the day, was there a discussion of the constant delay 18 :13 :44 5 And again, when you write that Magma was 18:10 :29 5 work that you were doing at Magma with these 18 :13:49 6 using, you're really referring to yourself, aren't you, 18 :10 :32 6 representatives from Synopsys? 18 :13 :5 2 7 Dr. van Ginneken? 18:10:35 7 A. There were fairly extensive discussions about 18 :13 :54 8 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, document speaks for 18 :10 :35 8 constant delay, yes. 18 :13 :58 9 Itself. 18:10 :37 9 Q. Well, tell me what you can recall telling 18 :14 :00 10 A. Yes. 18 :10 :37 10 Synopsys at this meeting in 1998 about constant delay . 18:14 :0 2 11 Q . Again, no one else at Magma, none of Magma's 18 :10 :37 11 A . Well, I don't remember this meeting all that 18 :14:0 6 12 agents, consultants, or anyone else knew that you were 18:10:43 12 well, but we went over the overall methodology and how 18 :14:0 8 13 using any material from Synopsys in connection with your 18 :10 :50 13 constant delay was used, how we used library analysis, 18 :14:17 14 work at Magma, correct? 18:10 :54 14 logic optimization, how it was used within placement, 18 :14:2 3 15 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 18 :10 :55 15 stretching and compressing Idea . So I think we did -- 18 :14:33 16 That's not what the sentence says . 18 :10 :57 16 we spent a significant amount of time on these subjects, 18 :14 :4 0 17 Q. Is that correct? 18 :10:58 17 probably at least two hours . 18:14 :44 18 A. Yes. 18 :11 :01 18 Q. Well, looking at Exhibit No . 27, if you 18:14 :48 19 Q. In paragraph 37, last sentence reads, 18:11 :01 19 could, which is "Driving on the Left-hand Side of the 18 :14 :52 20 "Neither Magma, to my knowledge, nor I, informed Mr. 18:11 :18 20 Performance Speedway." In the meeting in 1998 -- and 18 :14 :55 21 Papaefthymiou of the fact that Magma's patent 18 :11 :25 21 I'm just going to go through some of the topics in the 18 :15:08 22 applications contained Synopsys's inventions and 18 :11 :28 22 paper which is Exhibit 27 -- did you discuss with 18 :15:10 23 confidential information ." 18 :11 :31 23 Synopsys in 1998 Magma was going to use these concepts 18 :15 :1 3 24 Now, Dr. van Ginneken, was there anyone else 18 :11 :33 24 of logical effort in connection with the constant delay 18:15 :17 25 other than yourself who could have informed Mr . 18 :11 :36 25 methodology? 18 :15:22 209 211

1 Papaefthymiou of that fact, to your knowledge? 18 :11 :40 1 A. Logical effort, I'm not sure that we used the 18:15 :23 2 _A . _Not to my. knowledge . ... . 18:11 :43 2 term "logical effort" at that time, very often . We 18:15 :29 3 Q. So you're the only person that could have 18:11 :44 3 talked about gain sometimes, 18 :15 :32 4 informed Mr . Papaefthymiou of that fact, correct? 18 :11 :46 4 Q. About gain? 18 :15 :3 3 5 A. Yes. 18 :11 :51 5 A. Yes. And constant delay and fixed timing. 18:15 :3 5 6 Q. Earlier today, Dr. van Ginneken, you referred 18 :11 :51 6 Those are the terms that we used most of the time. 18 :15 :4 1 7 to a meeting that was attended by certain 18 :12:25 7 Q. And gain is an aspect of electrical effort, 18 :15 :43 8 representatives of Synopsys in 1998 that included Joe 18 :12 :28 8 correct? 18 :15 :49 9 Hutt . Do you recall that testimony? 18 :12 :36 9 A. Yeah. Gain is really the same thing as the 18:15 :49 10 A. Yes . 18:12 :37 10 logical effort . 18:15 :51 11 Q. I'd like to ask you a few more detailed 18 :12 :38 11 Q. So you talked about these concepts, although 18 :15 :53 12 questions about that. That meeting took place first 18 :12 :40 12 you may not have called it logical effort, which is, I 18:15 :56 13 half of 1998? 18 :12 :46 13 believe, Sutherland's phrase; is that correct? 18 :15 :59 14 A. Yes, I think probably even first quarter . 18 :12 :48 14 A. Right. 18:16 :0 1 i5 Q . First quarter of 1998. And to the best of 18 :12 :51 15 Q, You talked about the concept of gain with 18 :16 :0 1 16 your recollection, can you recall who attended from 18 :12 :54 16 Synopsys in connection with the constant delay model, 18 :16 :10 17 Synopsys? 18 :12 :56 17 correct? 18:16 :1 4 18 A. I believe It was Joe Hutt and Sang Wang . 18 :12 :58 18 A. Yes. 18:16 :1 5 19 Q. Anyone else? 18 :13 :02 19 Q. The next topic in the 1996 paper, Exhibit 27, 18 :16:1 5 20 A. I only remember those two . 18 :13 :06 20 is constant delay synthesis . Did you discuss that 18 :16 :2 1 21 Q. And who attended from Magma's side? 18:13 :08 21 approach with Synopsys during the meeting in 19987 18:16 :26 22 A. Rajeev Madhavam and myself and maybe other 18 :13 :11 22 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous. 18 :16 :3 1 23 people . I believe we went to lunch first, had lunch 18 :13 :17 23 A. Which page are we? 18:16:3 4 24 with just the four of us, and then returned to Magma, 18 :13:23 24 Q. The next page, Bates stamped 12223 . The 18:16:35 25 and there were more' discussions at Magma which possibly 18 :13 :28 25 topic is constant delay synthesis . Did you discuss that 18:16:4 3 210 212

47 (Pages 209 to 212) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 concept that you were working on at Magma with Synopsys 18 :16 :47 1 A. -- worried only about this particular 18 :20 :06 2 in the meeting in 1998? 18:16:51 2 submicron effect . 18:20:08 3 A, Yes. 18:16:54 3 Q. So you were focusing on constant delay and 18 :20:09 4 Q. And what do you recall telling $ynopsys about 18 :16:54 4 this particular sub micron effect within your constant 18:20 :1 3 5 your work on constant delay synthesis? 18 :16 :58 5 delay methodology? 18 :20 :1 7 6 A. I don't recall that clearly . I can't comment 18 :17 :00 6 A. Yes. 18 :20:18 7 In detail on what exactly we covered . 18 :17 :07 7 Q. And this was all discussed in the meeting 18:20 :1 8 8 Q. The next topic is mapping for delay. Did you 18 :17 :10 8 with Joe Hutt and Sang Wang? 18 :20:2 0 9 discuss that concept with Synopsys at the meeting in 18 :17 :17 9 A. Sang Wang, 18 :20 :25 Y 10 1998? 18 :17 :21 10 Q. Sang Wang from Synopsys during the first 18 :20 :2 7 11 A. Well, certainly, because mapping is a key 18 :17 :22 11 quarter of 1998 ; is that correct? 18 :20 :3 1 12 component of synthesis. 18 :17 :26 12 A. Yes. 18 :20 :3 2 13 Q . Then the next subject In the 1996 paper Is 18 :17 :30 13 Q . Did you make a make a technical presentation, 18:20 :33 14 area estimation . Did you discuss this with Synopsys at 18 :17 :35 14 slides, so forth? 18 :20 :3 6 15 the meeting In 1998? 18 :17 :39 15 A. Yeah . I think when I returned to Synopsys -- 18:20:37 16 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous, 18 :17 :42 16 or to Magma after lunch I made a technical presentation 18 :20 :4 0 17 compound . 18 :17 :45 17 with slides . 18:20 :45 18 A. I can't recall whether we discussed that or 18 :17 :45 18 Q . Could you identify for the record who Raul 18 :20:47 19 not . 18 :17 :47 19 Camposano is? 18 :20 :59 20 Q . The next relates to area optimization. 18 :17 :47 20 A. Raul Camposano, he is currently CTO of 18 :21 :0 1 21 There's a figure related to buffer insertion . Did you 18:17 :53 21 Synopsys, I believe . 18 :21 :0 6 22 discuss that concept with Synopsys in 1998? 18 :17 :57 22 Q . The chief technical officer? 18 :21 :06 23 MR. EDELMAN: Objection, vague and ambiguous. 18:18 :00 23 A. Yes. 18:21 :08 24 . A. I think probably yes. 18 :18 :02 24 Q. What was his position in 1998? 18 :21 :08 25 Q. And then section 7 of the paper refers to 18 :18:07 25 A . He was already with Synopsys. I'm not sure 18:21 :11 213 215

1 discrete sizing algorithms . Did you discuss that with 18 :18 :12 1 that he was CTO at that time already. He had a couple 18 :21 :1 5 2 Synopsys at the meeting in 1998? 18 :18 :17 2 of other positions before he became CTO . 18 :21 :20 3 A. I can't say I recall discussing that. 18 :18:21 3 Q . Did you participate in 1998 on a panel 18 :21 :23 4 Q . The next subject I think you may have 18 :18 :25 4 discussion with Mr. Camposano? 18 :21 :26 5 mentioned easier is library analysis . Did you discuss 18 :18 :28 5 A, Yes . 18 :21:28 6 that subject in Its relationship to constant delay at 18 :18 :32 6 Q . Where was that panel discussion? 18 :21 :2 8 7 the meeting with Synopsys in 1998? 18 :18 :37 7 A. That was at the ISDB conference in Monterey . 18 :21 :3 0 8 A. Yes. 18 :18 :40 8 Q. This is the same conference that Professor 18 :21 :3 5 9 Q. The following subjects I just will ask you 18 :18 :40 9 Otten made a presentation in? 18 :21 :3 8 10 the joint question, Accuracy, cell generators, and open 18 :18 :52 10 A. No . It was a year later. 18:21 :40 11 problems, did you discuss any of those concepts at the 18 :18:58 11 Q. So Mr . -- 18:21 :42 12 meeting with Synopsys in 1998 where you made a 18 :19 :02 12 A . So it was in 1999 . 18 :21 :44 13 presentation on constant delay? 18 :19:06 13 Q. 1999? 18 :21 :4 6 14 MR . EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous, 18 :19 :16 14 A. Right. 18:21 :47 15 compound, 18 :19 :17 15 Q. And what was -- did you make a presentation 18 :21 :4 8 16 A. We discussed the issue of RC wire delay, that 18 :19 :20 16 on this panel? 18 :21 :5 1 17 I'm fairly sure. The rest I cannot say for sure . 18:19:27 17 A. lust a brief presentation, couple of minutes, 18 :21 :5 2 18 Q. And did you discuss the concept of RC wire 18:19:30 18 few slides, three or four slides . 18:21:55 19 delay in connection with submicron design and the 18:19:34 19 Q. And what was your presentation on? 18 :21 :56 20 challenges that that presented? 18 :19:39 20 A . It was about constant delay and fixed timing 18 :21 :58 21 A. Well, I'm not sure what submicron -- I mean, 18:19 :42 21 in the context of what -- bringing together logic 18:22 :0 3 22 we discussed it in the context of using constant delay 18 :19 :52 22 synthesis and physical design . 18 :22 :07 23 and physical design . Not in the context of other 18 :19 :56 23 Q. And these were the concepts of constant delay 18:22 :10 24 submicron effects. We -- 18:20:03 24 that you- were working on at Magma, correct? 18 :22 :13 25 Q. I understand, 18:20 :05 25 A. Yes . 18 :22 :1 7 214 216

48 (Pages 11 :3 to Zib)

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 Q. Did Mr . Camposano acknowledge the work that 18 :22 :17 1 A. Apparently. At least Synopsys thinks so. 18 :26 :12 2 you did in your presentation at the panel? 18:22 :23 2 Q. Did IBM contribute to this technology in any 18 :26 :1 5 3 A. He made a remark that said something like 18 :22:27 3 way? 18:26:22 4 that some startups present some pretty familiar ideas. 18:22:32 4 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 18 :26:23 5 Q. Indicating to you that he recognized that you 18 :22 :38 5 as to the term "technology ." 18:26 :2 4 6 were still working on constant delay methodology at 18 :22 :42 6 A. Not to my knowledge. 18 :26 :27 7 Magma? 18 :22 :47 7 Q. Was this the subject of discussions with IBM? 18 :26 :32 8 A. Yes . 18 :22 :48 8 A. Yes . 18:26:3 5 9 Q. The same methodology that you had been 18 :22 :48 9 Q. Those were discussions that took place as 18 :26:35 10 working on at Synopsys, correct? 18 :22 :52 10 part of the joint project? 18 :26 :38 11 A. That's correct . 18 :22 :55 11 A. Yes. 18:26 :40 12 Q. Now, Dr. van Ginneken, I've asked you a 18 :22 :55 12 MR. RILEY: Let's take a break and I'll see 18 :26:40 13 number of questions about your declaration, and I know 18 :22 :59 13 if I can finish up . 18:26:5 7 14 you've had a chance to read through it again . Have you 18:23:02 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 18 :26 :5 9 15 given here today any testimony that you feel is 18 :23 :07 15 time now is approximately 6 :26 p.m . 18:27 :00 16 materially inconsistent with the testimony in the 18 :23 :11 16 (Recess .) 18 :35:2 6 17 declaration? 18 :23 :15 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 18:35 :47 18 A. No. 18:23 :16 18 The time now is approximately 6:35 p .m. 18 :35 :49 19 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 29 .) 18:24 :14 19 Q. Dr. van Ginneken, referring to the '114 18 :35 :53 20 Q . Exhibit 29 is United States patent No . 18 :24 :37 20 patent, this relates to an iterative placement algorithm 18 :35:5 8 21 6,378,114 . It's entitled "Method for the Physical 18 :24 :41 21 that involves partitioning, correct? 18:36 :07 22 Placement of an Integrated Circuit Adaptive to Netlist 18 :24 :45 22 MR . EDELMAN, Objection, vague and ambiguous, 18 :36 :12 23 Changes ." The inventors are Narendra Shenoy and van 18 :24 :48 23 compound. Calls for claim construction . 18:36 :14 24 Glnneken . Are you familiar with this patent, Dr. van 18 :24 :57 24 A. Yes. 18:36 :1 7 25 Ginneken?_ 18 :25 :01 25 Q. Did you use any aspect of this in your work 18 :36 :1 8 217 219

1 A. Yes. 18 :25 :01 1 at Magma? 18:36 :2 7 2 Q. This patent was prosecuted after you left 18 :25 :01 2 MR . EDELMAN : Same objections . 18 :36:2 8 3 Synopsys; is that correct? 18 :25 :06 3 A. No, I do not. 18:36 :3 1 4 A. That's correct . 18 :25 :08 4 Q. And I realize you've been away from the 18 :36 :32 5 Q. When did you first learn about this patent 18 :25 :08 5 company for a while, but while you were there, did Magma 18 :36 :35 6 application? 18 :25:11 6 have any tools that used anything like what's discussed 18:36 :3 9 7 A. Shortly after I left Synopsys. 18:25 :12 7 in Exhibit 1 -- in the 114 patent? 18 :36 :45 8 Q . And how was it that you came to learn about 18 :25 :13 8 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, lack of foundation, 18 :36 :49 9 this patent application? 18:25:15 9 vague and ambiguous . 18 :36 :51 10 A. Synopsys contacted me, they needed my 18 :25 :17 10 A. They have a placer, it's not the same method . 18 :36 :52 11 signature to complete It. 18:25 :21 11 It presupposes a grid of buckets rather than recursively 18 :37 :00 12 Q. The work that was done here, was that part of 18 :25 :22 12 dividing the plane. 18 :37:1 1 13 the joint project with IBM? 18 :25 :31 13 Q. So the '114 patent recursively divides the 18 :37 :1 4 .14 .. _ MR. EDELMAN : Objection, vague and ambiguous 18 :25 :34 14 plane? 18 :37 :20 15 as to the term "part of," 18 :25:35 15 A. Yes. 18:37 :2 0 16 A. Yes. 18 :25 :37 16 Q. During placement; is that correct? 18:37 :2 1 17 Q . In what way was it part of that joint project 18:25:39 17 A. That's correct . 18:37 :23 18 between Synopsys and IBM? 18 :25:41 18 MR. EDELMAN : Objection, calls for legal 18 :37:2 3 19 A. The patent describes the placer that was 18 :25 :43 19 conclusion . Calls for expert testimony. 18:37 :25 20 being developed for the NGSS system . 18:25 :51 20 Q. And the tool at Magma while you were there 18 :37 :27 21 Q. And was this -- and you contributed to the 18 :25:56 21 had the defined buckets the boundaries of which didn't 18 :37 :3 2 22 development of that placer, correct? 18 :26 :00 22 change? 18:37 :3 6 23 A . Well, I didn't write any code for it. 18:26 :04 23 A. That's right. 18:37 :3 7 24 Q. But you contributed to the conception, you're 18 :26:06 24 MR . RILEY : I have no further questions. 18:37 :40 25 listed as inventor, correct? 18 :26 :10 25 MR . EDELMAN : I will let the witness go . I 18 :37 :42 218 220

49 (Pages 217 to 220) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT ' (800) 219-5300 lf6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9087-b9348616b443 1 obviously have a lot of questions for tomorrow. 18 :37 :44 1 AFFIDAVI T 2 MR . RILEY: Thank you very much for your time 18 :37:46 2 3 and your patience and thank you, too . 18:37:48 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This adjourns the 18 :37 :52 4 )SS. 5 deposition of Lukas van Ginneken . The time now Is 18 :37 :53 5 COUNTY OF KING 6 approximately 6 :37 p .m . This is the end of tape No. 4 . 18:37 :57 6 7 Going off the record . 18:38 :03 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that I have 8 (Discussion off the record .) 18:38 :22 8 read my within deposition, and the same is true and 9 MR . RILEY : So I think that the court 18 :38 :22 9 accurate, save and except for changes and/o r 10 reporter has a concern about how to treat Exhibit 27. 18 :38 :23 10 corrections, if any, as indicated by me on th e 11 The white paper, Exhibit 24, and Exhibit 22 are going to 18 :38:29 11 correction sheet hereof. 12 be bound separately, will not be part of the deposition 18 :38 :34 12 13 record given to the witness until the court rules on the 18 :38 :39 1 3 14 confidentiality concerns. The question Is, do you want 18 :38:43 14 15 -- does Synopsys want to designate Exhibit 27 in the 18 :38 :48 15 LUKAS VAN GINNEKE N 16 same way? 18 :38 :51 16 17 MR. EDELMAN : We had indicated where we left 18 :38 :52 17 18 off I was going to look at what the protective order 18 :38 :57 18 19 provided at this point, and I didn't . I'm trying to do 18:38 :59 19 20 It right now . 18:39 :02 20 21 MR . BULCHIS : I would suggest, insofar as it 18:39 :03 21 Dated this day of .2005. Z2 was not marked originally as confidential, that it was 18 :39 :05 22 23 given to Dr . van:Ginneken while he was employed at Magma 18 :39 :08 23 24 without any obligations of secrecy, that there's no way 18 :39 :12 24 25 It can be considered confidential. 18:39 :16 25 221 223

1 MR . EDELMAN : If everyone is willing to 18 :39:21 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 stipulate with all of those facts, I might agree with 18 :39 :23 2 3 you, but I'm not. As far as I can gather from this, it 18 :39 :26 3 STATE OF WASHINGTO N 4 has to be bound separately, but Mr. van Ginneken can 18 :40:21 4 ) 55. 5 look at the exhibit, as can counsel under certain 18 :40 :25 5 COUNTY OF KING ) 6 conditions, That's the best I can interpret what the 18 :40:28 6 7 protective order says at this point. 18 :40 :42 7 I, the undersigned Notary Public in and for th e 8 MR. RILEY., So Mr . Bulchis, how about we just 18:40:46 8 State of Washington, do hereby certify : 9 include that with the other two and take it up with the 18 :40:49 9 That the annexed and foregoing deposition of each 10 magistrate? 18:40:51 10 witness named herein was taken stenographically before 11 MR. BULCHIS : Okay. Based on counsel for 18 :40 :52 11 me and reduced to typewriting under my direction ; 12 Synopsys's good faith representation that this is 18 :40 :54 12 I further certify that the deposition wa s 13 confidential and therefore has to be bound separately, 18:40 :57 13 submitted to each said witness for examination, readin g 14 well agree to do that. 18:40:59 14 and signature after the same was transcribed, unless 15 MR . RILEY : So Exhibit 27 should be treated 18 :41 :00 15 indicated in the record that the parties and eac h 16 the same as Exhibit 22 and 24 and bound separately. 18 :41 :02 16 witness waive the signing ; 17 (Depos€tIon adjourned at 6 :40 p.m .) 18 :41 :13 17 I further certify that all objections made at th e 18 18 time of said examination to my qualifications or th e 19 19 manner of taking the deposition, or to the conduct of 20 20 any party, have been noted by me upon said deposition ; 21 21 1 further certify that I am not a relative o r 22 22 employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties t o 23 23 said action, or a relative or employee of any suc h 24 24 attorney or counsel ; 25 25 I further testify that I am not in any way 222 224

50 (Pages 221 to 224) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 financially interested in the said action or the outcome 2 thereof; 3 I further ce rtify that each witness before 4 examination was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, 5 the whole truth and nothing but the truth; 6 I further certify that the deposition, as 7 transcribed, is a full, true and correct transcript of 8 the testimony, including questions and answers , and all 9 objections, motions, and exceptions of counsel made and 10 taken at the time of the foregoing examination . 11 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 13 hand and affixed my official seal this day o f 14 2005. 15 16 17 18 CHERYL MACDONAL D 19 License No . 249 8 20 Notary Public in and for 21 the State of Washington, 22 residing at Seattle . 225

LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 4/26/0 5

PLEASE MAKE ALL CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS ON THIS SHEET, SHOWING PAGE , LINE, AND REASON , IF ANY . SIGN THIS SHEET, SIGN THE ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE SHEET AND RETURN AS PER INSTRUCTIONS IN COVER LETTER.

PA GE LINE CORRECTION AND REASON

(SIGNATURE) SEE WA, REPORTS 34A, RULE 30(E) USCA 28, RULE 30(E )

REPORTER : CHERYL MACDONALD

51 (Pages 225 to 226) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4 -46bd -9067-b9348616b443 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISC O

3 ------

4 SYNOPSIS, INC ., a Delawar e corporation, 5 Plaintiff, 6 -vs- C04-03923 MMC 7

8 MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC ., a Delaware corporation, 9 and LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN ,

10 Defendants .

11 ------Videotaped Deposition Upon Oral Examinatio n 12 of 13 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, PhD, VOLUME I I 14 ------

15 9 :15 a .m .

16 April 27, 2005

17 1420 Fifth Avenue

18 Seattle, Washington

1 9

20

21 CHERYL MACDONALD, RMR, CR R 22 COURT REPORTER

2 3

24

25

226 l

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3 13-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 APPEARANCES 1 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, witness herein, having been first 09 :11 :14 2 duly sworn by the Notary, deposed 09 :11 :14 3 FOR SYNOPSYS: and said as follows :11 4 4 MICHAEL EDELMAN 2 : 09 :1 Attorney at Law 3 MR . BULCHIS : It's not clear to me whether 09:11 :14 l S LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT 4 this is a continuation of the deposition of yesterday so 09:21 :1 1 975 Page Mill Road 6 Palo Alto, California 94304-1013 5 that counsel will limit his questions as to what was 09:21:1 9 7 6 asked yesterday, or is this a start of a new deposition 09 :21:22 8 FOR MAGMA : 7 aimed at the deposition of Dr . van Ginneken by Synopsys . 09 :21 :25 9 -PETER OBSTLER 8 MR . EDELMAN Attorney at Law : We have been informed last 09 :21 :28 10 O'MELVENY & MYERS 9 Friday, I believe, or last week that Magma has still yet 09:21 :3 1 Embarcadero Center West 10 to produce something in the order of 10 million pages of 09:21:3 6 11 275 Battery Street 11 documents . It's not possible for us to take our own 09 :21 :39 Suite 260 0 12 San Francisco, California 94111-3305 12 deposition of Dr. van Ginneken until we receive Magma's 09 :21 :42 13 13 production . So we are going to ask questions of Dr . van 09:21:4 5 14 FOR THE WITNESS: 14 Ginneken under Magma's notice . I am not aware of any 09 :21 :4 9 15 EDWARD W . BULCHI S Attorney at Law 15 requirement that our questioning of Dr . van Ginneken 09 :21 :52 16 DORSEY & WHITNEY 16 under Magma's notice need be limited to the topics that 09 :21:54 1420 Fifth Avenue 17 Magma asked in yesterday's session . 09 :21 :58 17 Suite e400 Seattle, Washington 98101 18 MR . OBSTLER : Let me just clarify that. I 09:22 :03 18 19 believe there was a notice sent by Synopsys to notice 09 :22 :09 19 ALSO PRESENT : BROOK YOUNG, Videographer 20 his deposition for today. I don't really care whether 09 :22 :13 STEPHEN MELVIN 21 you do this ~as a continuation or under your notice, and 09 :22 :1 8 20 21 22 1 think also Mr . Bulchis also has made clear that Dr. 09:22 :2 1 22 23 van Ginneken will be made available again, so I don't '09 :22 :2 3 23 24 see any prejudice to you on the documents . I think the 09 24 :22 :26 25 25 only question is whether you want to proceed on the 09 :22 :2 9 227 - 229

1 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 4/27/05 1 notice that you served on Dr . van Ginneken for today or 09:22:3 1 2 2 whether you're going to be going under our notice . And 09:22 :34 EXHIBIT INDE X 3 3 really the only other point, Michael, which you would be 09 :22:3 7 4 4 interested in knowing is I thought we had an 09 :22 :3 9 S EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 5 understanding if we finished yesterday, which we did, 09 :22 :4 1 No . 30 ...... 277 6 you would be paying for the court reporter and the 09 :22 :43 7 videographer today . 09 :22 :45 6 No. 3 1 ...... 33 0 7 8 MR . EDELMAN : I honestly don't know what 09 :22 :4 6 No. 32 ...... 360 9 discussions were on that topic, so I really haven't 09 :22 :50 10 given that any thought. 09 :22:5 3 B No. 33 ...... 393 g 11 MR . BULCHIS : As you know, in settlement of 09 :22 :56 No . 34 ...... 410 12 this lawsuit, we have agreed to provide Dr. van Ginneken 09 :22 :57 1 0 11 13 additional time to you, so we would certainly provide 09 :23 :00 12 14 him again for a future deposition . So I understand the 09 :23 :04 EXAMINATION INDEX 15 need to do it again : Its just that normally a 09 :23 :0 7 13 14 BY MR . EDELMAN, PAGE(S) : 231 - 442 16 cross-examination is limited to the direct examination, 09 :23 :10 15 17 so I kind of need to know whether you're going to be 09 :23 :15 16 CONFIDENTIAL SESSIONS : PAGE(S): 330 - 331 18 further than what Mr . Riley asked yesterday or are 09 :23 :1 8 17 350 - 393 19 you're going to do your own . 09 :23 :2 1 422 - 443 20 MR. EDELMAN : A cross-examination in a 09 :23 :2 2 18 19 21 deposition is not limited to the subject of direct 09 :23 :2 4 20 22 examination in a deposition . It can touch on any issues 09 :23 :27 21 23 relevant to the suit. It may very well turn out it 09 22 :23 :3 1 23 24 makes no difference what we characterize today's 09:23 :34 24 25 session . Based on past events that have occurred in 09 :23 :3 6 25 228 230

2 (Pages 227 to 230) EASTWOOD- STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 this litigation, I have to be very careful with how 1 09 :23 :41 1 way inaccurate in the declaration marked as Exhibit 1? 09 :26 :07 2 make my representations, and I want to just make it 09 :23 :44 2 A. No. 09 :26:1 2 3 clear that we have had not had the ability to adequately 09 :23 :45 3 Q. If you could turn to the last page of the 09:26 :12 4 depose Dr, van Ginneken in light of the state of 09 :23 :50 4 exhibit. Is that a true and correct copy of your 09 :26 :20 5 discovery in the case. 09 :23:54 5 signature on the bottom of page B? 09 :26 :23 6 So for that reason I would prefer to 09 :23 :55 6 A. Yes, it is . 09:26 :2 8 7 characterize today's deposition as questioning under 09 :23:56 7 Q. And is it a true and correct copy of your 09:26 :28 8 Magma's notice of deposition. 09 :23 :59 8 signature at the bottom of each of the other pages of 09 :26 :31 9 LUKAS VAN GINNEXEN, WITNESS HEREIN, HAVING BEEN FIRST 09 :24 :11 g the declaration? 09 :26 :3 3 duly sworn by the Notary, deposed 09 :24 :11 10 A, Yes, it is 10 and said as follows: 09 :24 :11 . 09:26:38 11 Q . If you could turn to paragraph 47 of the 09 :26 :43 11 09 :24 :11 declaration, which is on page 8. The paragraph states, 09 :26 :47 12 EXAMINATION 09 :24 :13 12 "Without waiving any attorney-client privilege, I can 09 13 BY MR. EDELMAN : 09:24 :13 13 :26 :53 confirm that I am signing this declaration of my own 09 14 Q . Good morning, Dr . van Ginneken . 09 :24 :14 14 :26:57 15 A . Good morning . 09 :24 :16 15 free will, after having consulted with my counsel 09 :26:59 16 Q. Like to reintroduce Exhibit No. 1 which is 09 :24 :17 16 regarding the nature, purpose and effect of this 09 :27 :04 17 the -- 09 :24 :20 17 declaration ." 09:27 :0 6 18 MR . OBSTLER : Michael, I apologize, and ! 09 :24 :22 18 Is that an accurate statement? 09 :27 :08 19 really apologize. There's one other matter I forgot to 09 :24 :23 19 A. Yes. 09:27 :1 1 20 address that I wanted to if I could, and I apologize for 09 :24 :26 20 Q. Before you signed the declaration, did you 09:27 :11 21 doing it, I assume if we're continuing the deposition 09 :24 :29 21 review the declaration to make sure it was accurate? 09 :27 :15 22 then the magistrate's ruling stands that those portions 09 :24 :35 22 A. I did . 09 :27 :2 0 23 of documents that you marked confidential and we marked 09 :24 :39 23 Q. Did you review every sentence of the 09 :27 :20 24 confidential to the testimony related to that shall 09 :24 :44 24 declaration? 09 :27 :22 25 remain confidential, 09 :24 :46 25 A. I read every sentence, yes. 09:27 :25 23 1 233

1 MR . EDELMAN : That's correct . To the extent 09 :24 :47 1 Q. Did you review the declaration sufficiently 09:27 :2 9 2 there were Magma confidential documents introduced, and 09 :24 :48 2 so that you felt comfortable in your own mind that the 09 :27 :30 3 1 don't know whether there will be any or not, that they 09 :24 :51 3 statements in the declaration were true and correct? 09 :27 :33 4 would be under the same guidelines . 09 :24 :54 4 A. I think so. 09:27:40 5 BY MR . EDELMAN : 09 :24 :58 5 Q. How long did it take you to review the 09 :27 :41 6 Q . I'd like to reintroduce Exhibit No . 1, which 09 :24 :59 6 declaration on March 10th, 2005 before you signed it? 09 :27 :46 7 is the declaration that you signed on March 10th, 2005 . 09 :25 :03 7 A. I believe, including all of the changes that 09 :27 :5 2 8 Could you get that? 09 :25 :07 8 went on, it was several hours, probably about five 09:27 :58 9 Do you understand that you provided these 09 :25 :28 9 hours. 09:28 :04 10 statements In the declaration that has been marked as 09 :25 :31 10 Q . Where were you when you reviewed the 09 :28 :05 11 Exhibit 1 under penalty of perjury? 09:25 :33 11 declaration? 09 :28:06 12 A. I do . 09 :25 :35 12 A. In a room in this building . 09:28 :09 13 Q . Do you understand that the testimony that 09 :25 :36 13 Q . In a room in the Dorsey offices? 09 :28 :11 14 you're giving in the deposition today Is under penalty 09 :25 :37 14 A. Yes. 09 :28:14 15 of perjury? 09 :25 :39 15 Q. Was anyone present with you during the time 09 :28 :14 16 A . I do. 09 :25 :40 16 that you were reviewing the declaration? 09 :28 :18 17 Q. Do you understand that criminal penalties may 09 :25 :41 17 A. Mr. Bulchis was present . 09 :28 :2 0 18 apply to an Individual who lies in a declaration 09 :25 :44 18 Q. Did you have an opportunity to talk with Mr . 09:28 :22 19 provided under penalty of perjury? 09 :25 :48 19 8uichis about any concerns you had over the deposition? 09 :28 :26 20 A . I do . 09 :25 :50 20 A. I did. 09:28 :29 21 Q . Do you believe that all the statements 09 :25 :51 21 Q. To the extent you felt like you needed advice 09 :28 :30 22 contained in the declaration marked as Exhibit 1 are 09 :25:56 22 of counsel relating to any statements in the 09 :28 :33 23 true and correct? 09 :25 :58 23 declaration, do you believe you had the opportunity to 09 :28 :34 24 A . Yes, I do . 09 :26 :00 24 consult with Mr. Bulchis and receive that advice? 09 :28:3 7 25 Q . Is there anything that you believe is in any 09 :26 :01 25 A. I had some opportunity, yes . 09:28 :4 1 232

3 (Pages 231 to 234) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d 33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q . Do you feet like there was any question or 09 :28 :43 1 paragraph 29 ambiguous? 09 :31 ;2 1 2 concern that you had that you did not get the 09 :28:47 2 A. That seems advantageous to Synopsys . 09!31 :25 3 opportunity to get addressed before you signed this 09 :28:51 3 Q. But do you have any information at your 09 :31 :28 4 declaration? 09 :28 :53 4 disposal to indicate whether or not Synopsys wanted to 09 :31:3 1 5 A . At the time, no . 09 :28 :55 5 keep paragraph 29 ambiguous? 09 :31 :34 6 Q. During the time you were reviewing the 09 :28 :57 6 A, I assumed that . 09 :31 :36 7 declaration, was there anyone else other than Mr. 09 :29 :02 7 Q. Do you have any information to indicate that? 09 :31:3 7 8 Bulchis that you had discussigns with? 09 :29 :05 8 A. No . 09 :31:3 9 9 A. No. 09:29 :09 9 Q. Yesterday you also testified you thought you 09 :31 :39 10 Q . Did you have any contact with Synopsys or any 09 :29:09 10 were pressured in signing the declaration ; is that 09 :31 :49 11 representative of Synopsys during the time that you were 09 :29:13 11 correct? 09:31 :54 12 in the room reviewing the declaration? 09 :29 :16 12 A. Yes . 09:31 :54 13 A. No . 09 :29:19 13 MR . BULCHIS : Excuse me for a minute . To the 09 :31 :56 14 Q . Before you signed the declaration marked as 09 :29 :20 14 extent that these questions would require you to 09:31 :5 8 15 Exhibit 1, did you have any meetings or discussions with 09 :29 :29 15 disclose conversations between you and I or information 09 :32 :00 16 anybody on behalf of Synopsys concerning the content of 09 :29 :34 16 that I provided to you, don't include those in your 09 :32 :05 17 the declaration? 09 :29 :37 17 answer, 09 :32 :07 18 A. No. 09:29 :41 18 THE WITNESS: Okay . 09 :32 :08 19 Q . Describe for me a little bit the process that 09 :29:41 19 Q. Did the pressure that you testified to 09 :32 :0 9 20 went on while you were reviewing the declaration . When 09 :29 :52 20 yesterday come from the fact that Synopsys had asserted 09 :32 :12 21 did you arrive at the Dorsey offices to review the 09 :29 :54 21 a claim against you? 09 :32 :1 5 22 declaration? 09:29 :57 22 A. Yes. 09 :32 :1 8 23 A. I think it was sometime between 9 and 10 a .m . 09 :29 :58 23 Q. Did any representative of Synopsys or counsel 09 :32 :19 24 Q. And do you have an understanding as to any 09:30:01 24 for Synopsys personally apply any pressure to you 09 :32 :2 2 25 discussions that occurred between Synopsys and your 09 :30 :05 25 directly in order to get you to sign this declaration? 09 :32:25 235 237 V

I counsel before you arrived on March 10th, 2005? 09 :30 :07 1 A. No. 09:32 :29 2 A. My understanding of those discussions is 09 :30 :11 2 Q . Did anyone at Synopsys make any threats to 09 :32 :29 3 limited. 09 :30 :13 3 you personally to sign this declaration? 09:32 :3 3 4 Q . Do you have any personal knowledge of how it 09 :30 :14 4 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . I would say that 09 :32 :35 5 is that the language that appears in the declaration was 09 :30 :17 5 the record yesterday indicated there was a threat made. 09 :32 :37 6 drafted before you showed up on March 10th, 2005 to 09 :30 :21 6 A. Not at that time. 09:32 :43 7 review? 09 :30 :25 7 Q. At any time before you signed the 09 :32 :44 B A. My knowledge of that is very limited . 09 :30:26 8 declaration, did anyone on behalf of Synopsys ever make 09 :32 :4 7 9 Q . Well, do you have any understanding of which 09 :30:29 9 a threat to you, other than the filing of a lawsuit? 09:32 :4 9 10 portions of the declaration your counsel suggested as 09 :30 :31 10 A. No. 09:32 :5 5 11 opposed to which portions that Synopsys suggested? 09 :30 :34 11 Q . Did anyone on behalf of Synopsys or counsel 09 :32 :56 12 A. No. 09:30 :37 12 for Synopsys yell or scream at you in order to pressure 09 :33 :0 1 13 Q. Well, yesterday -- if you can turn to 09:30 :37 13 you to sign this declaration? 09 :33 :0 5 14 paragraph 29 on page 6 -- there was testimony concerning 09 :30 :45 14 A. No. 09:33 :09 15 the language in paragraph 29 . Do you have personal 09 :30 :50 15 Q. So when you refer to the fact that you were 09 :33:09 16 knowledge as to who it was that suggested that paragraph 09 :30:54 16 pressured to sign the declaration, is that solely a 09 :33 :11 17 29 be worded in this manner? 09:30 :57 17 reference to the fact that you were a defendant in 09 :33 :1 4 18 A. No. 09:31 :01 18 claims that Synopsys had brought? 09 :33:1 7 19 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether 09 :31 :01 19 A. Yes, 09 :33 :2 0 20 in fact Synopsys wanted to name specific individuals in 09 :31 :04 20 Q. Now, during the course of your review of the 09 :33 :20 21 paragraph 29 but your counsel refused for any particular 09 :31 :07 21 declaration, did you make certain changes to the 09 :33 :36 22 names to be identified? 09 :31 :12 22 declaration? 09 :33 :38 23 A. No, I do not . 09:31 :14 23 A. Yes. 09 :33 :39 24 Q. So what Is the basis for your belief, as you 09 :31 :15 24 Q . And why did you make changes to the 09 :33 :39 25 testified yesterday, that Synopsys wanted to keep 09 :31 :18 25 declaration? 09 :33 :42 236 238

4 (Pages 235 to 238) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151- 8d33-aa3Ob2Oe3 544 1 A. Because I eliminated things that weren't 09 :33 :43 1 (Record read as requested .) 09 :36 :25 2 true . 09 :33 :47 2 A. Yes. 09 :36 :2 8 3 Q. So you made changes to the declaration to 09:33 :47 3 Q . Why did you think the activities were in 09 :36:28 4 make sure the declaration is accurate as you could make 09 :33 :50 4 violation of your obligations to Synopsys? 09 :36 :35 5 it, correct? 09 :33 :52 5 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . I assume you're 09 :36 :3 8 6 A. Yes. 09:33 :54 6 asking for the witness's understanding and not a legal 09 :36 :40 7 Q. Mow many different iterations of the 09:33 :54 7 conclusion here . 09 :36 :42 i' 8 declaration did you review? 09 :34 :00 8 MR . EDELMAN : Correct . 09 :36 :4 3 9 A. Perhaps a dozen or so . 09:34 :06 9 A. Because they are in violation of the 09 :36:46 10 Q. A dozen . It took you over five hours, you 09:34 :08 10 agreement I had with Synopsys, employment agreement . 09:36:54 11 believe, to review those dozen or so iterations? 09 :34 :13 11 Q . Did you believe Synopsys had a right to be 09:36 :57 12 A . Yes. 09:34 :17 12 upset about the fact that you had violated your 09 :37 :00 13 Q. Why did you sign the declaration? 09 :34 :17 13 obligations to it? 09 :37 :0 2 14 A. To get out of the lawsuit. 09 :34 :23 14 A. I don't know that. 09 :37 :0 6 15 Q. Was there any other reason you signed the 09:34 :28 15 Q. Now, at any time during your review of the 09 :37 :0 7 16 declaration? 09 :34 :30 16 declaration, did you have any understanding as to 09 :37 :1 8 17 A. No, 09:34 :32 17 whether or not the declaration would be made public 09 :37:22 18 Q. Did you have any feeling of remorse about the 09 :34 :33 18 after you signed? 09:37 :24 19 activities that you had engaged in? 09 :34 :35 19 A. No. 09 :37:2 8 20 A. To some extent, yes . 09 :34 :42 20 Q. Did you have any discussion with anyone about 09 :37:28 21 Q. And why did you have feelings of remorse? 09 :34 :44 21 the possibility the declaration would be made public? 09 :37:3 2 22 A. Because it caused a lot of problems for other 09 :34 :47 22 A. No, I don't recall that . 09:37 :3 6 23 people. 09 :34 :51 23 Q. Did Synopsys enter into any agreement with 09 :37 :3 7 24 Q. What other people did it cause problems for? 09 :34 :51 24 you concerning whether or not the declaration would be 09 :37 :40 25 A. Magma . 09:34 :54 25 made public? 09 :37 :42 239 241

1 Q. Do you feel it caused any problems for 09:34 :56 1 A. I don't believe so . 09 :37 :4 5 2 Synopsys that inventions had been taken from Synopsys? 09 :34 :59 2 Q. At some point after the declaration was 09 :37 :46 3 A. To the extent that I felt remorse for that, 09 :35 :06 3 signed, you learned the declaration had been made 09 :37 :50 4 no. 09 :35 :08 4 public, correct? 09 :37 :52 5 Q. Do you think that Synopsys had meritorious 09 :35 :09 5 A. Correct . 09 :37 :53 6 claims against you? 09 :35 :12 6 Q. What were your feelings about that? 09 :37:5 3 7 A. I thought they might be considered by the 09 :35 :16 7 A. I was not happy about that. 09:37 :55 8 court, yes. I thought that was a possibility . 09 :35 :19 8 Q. Why? 09 :37 :5 7 9 Q. Did you feel sorry for the activities you 09:35 :22 9 A. Because it's derogatory to my reputation, 09 :37 :58 10 engaged in as described in the declaration? 09 :35 :27 10 Q . Well, the declaration contains entirely 09 :38 :03 11 A. No. 09 :35 :36 11 truthful statements, correct? 09 :38 :0 6 12 Q. Did you feel that the activities you engaged 09 :35 :36 12 A. Correct. 09 :38 :08 13 in in the declaration were in violation of your 09 :35 :38 13 Q. So. were you upset that the public was 09 :38 :08 14 obligations to Synopsys? 09 :35 :40 14 informed about the truth of your activities? 09 :38 :1 3 15 MR. OBSTLER: I want to just have an 09 :35:43 15 MR . OBSTLER : I object since -- "entirely 09 :38:1 6 16 objection, if I could. To the extent that he's 09 :35 :45 16 truthful statements" and "truth ." Again, he spent a 09:38 :1 8 17 referring to activities in the declaration, I just want 09 :35 :48 17 day testifying to the ambiguities in the declaration and 09 :38 :20 18 to be clear that the witness spent a day testifying to 09 :35 :52 18 statements that appeared to him to be misleading and he 09 :38 :23 19 what those activities were, and so I'm going to object 09 :35 :55 19 clarified that yesterday . 09:38 :26 20 to the extent that it's either going to mischaracterize 09 :35 :58 20 MR. EDELMAN . I would appreciate it if you 09:38 :2 7 21 what the witness said yesterday about those activities 09:36:01 21 could keep your objections to legitimate legal 09:38 :2 9 22 or the question "activities" is very vague and 09 :36 :04 22 objections as opposed to speaking objections . 09 :38 :33 23 ambiguous. 09 :36 :06 23 MR . OBSTLER : I'm making a record, Mr. 09 :38 :3 6 24 Q. You can answer . 09:36 :08 24 Edelman. 09 :38 :3 8 25 A. Could you repeat the question? 09:36 :09 25 MR . EDELMAN : Speaking objections aren't 09 :38 :39 240 242

5 (Pages 239 to 242) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 appropriate, as you know . 09:38 :41 1 A. Both, Well, no. Worth today. 09:41 :34 2 A . I feel the facts stated in the declaration 09:38:43 2 Q . Do you have an idea of how much your value in 09 :41 :37 3 are incomplete. 09 :38 :51 3 Magma stock has dropped since the day you signed the 09 :41 :40 4 Q . You said that you thought that the 09 :38 :53 4 declaration? 09 :41 :44 5 publication or the making public of the declaration hurt 09 :39 :00 5 A. About that same amount . 09 :41 :44 6 your reputation? 09 :39:03 6 Q. About $300,000? 09:41 :4 6 7 A . Yes. 09 :39:05 7 A. Yeah, $250,000, something like that. 09 :41 :48 8 Q . Did it hurt your reputation because the 09:39 :05 8 Q. Did you have any concerns about the loss of 09 :41 :50 9 public now knew something about you that was false? 09 :39:09 9 your value of Magma's stock as a result of publication 09 :41 :52 10 A. No. 09 :39 :13 10 of the declaration? 09 :41 :55 11 Q . Did you have discussions with anybody about 09 :39 :14 11 A. Some concern, yes. 09:41 :5 8 12 your concerns over the declaration being made public? 09 :39:21 12 Q . And did you speak about that concern with 09 :41 :59 13 A. No. 09 :39 :25 13 anybody? 09 :42 :01 14 Q . Before you signed the declaration did you 09 :39 :26 14 A. No. 09 :42 :02 15 seek any advice from counsel on the subject of what 09 :39 :29 15 Q. After the time that you signed the 09 :42 :03 16 would happen if the declaration was made public? 09 :39 :34 16 declaration, did you have any meetings with anybody from 09 :42 :19 17 MR . BULCHIS : I object to the question . 09 :39 :36 17 O'Melveny & Myers concerning the declaration? 09 :42 :23 18 Instruct the witness not to answer to the extent it 09 :39:38 18 A. After I signed the declaration? 09 :42 :27 19 inquires about a communication between the witness and 09 :39 :40 19 Q. Yes. 09:42 :29 20 his counsel . You may answer otherwise . 09:39 :42 20 A. Did I have a meeting, yes . 09 :42 :30 21 A . I can't answer that question . 09:39:55 21 Q. How many meetings? 09 :42 :33 22 Q. Did you have any concerns before signing the 09 :39 :58 22 A. I believe there were three meetings. 09 :42 :34 23 declaration about the possibility of you being sued . 09:40 :05 23 Q. Three? 09 :42 :3 9 24 under securities law after the declaration became 09 :40 :07 24 A. Three. 09 :42 :39 25 public? 09 :40 :11 2 5 Q. And who at O'Melveny & Myers participated in 09 :42 :40 243 245

1 MR . BULCHIS : Same objection and instruction. 09 :40 :12 1 those meetings? 09 :42 :4 3 2 MR . EDELMAN : Just asking if he has any 09 :40 :16 2 A . Mr . Riley, Mr. Obstler and Mr . Melvin . 09 :42:4 5 3 concerns, not any communications . 09 :40 :19 3 Q . What was the purpose of these meetings? 09 :42 :54 4 A . I had concerns, yes . 09:40 :25 4 MR. OBSTLER: Objection, vague and ambiguous . 09 :42 :56 5 Q . Did you seek advice of counsel on those 09 :40 :32 5 Q . What was the purpose of these meetings? 09 :42:58 6 concerns? 09 :40 :41 6 MR. OBSfLER: Objection, vague and ambiguous . 09 :42 :59 7 A . After the declaration was signed? 09 :40 :46 7 A . The purpose of the meetings was to exchange 09 :43 :04 8 Q. Before the declaration was signed . 09 :40 :47 8 information . I have an agreement with Magma to provide 09 :43 :10 9 THE WITNESS : Can I answer that? 09 :40 :50 9 information to Magma counsel, and they met with me to 09 :43 :16 10 MR . BULCHIS : To the extent that it would 09 :40:51 10 ask questions . 09 :43 :2 1 11 involve disclosure of communication that you had with 09 :40:54 11 Q. How long did each of these meetings last? 09 :43 :22 12 either me or some other lawyer, the answer is no . To 09 :40 :57 12 A. Half to a whole day . 09 :43 :26 13 the extent it was communication or reflects a 09 :41 :01 13 Q. Other than your meetings with O'Melveny & 09 :43 :29 14 communication from a third party who is not a lawyer, 09 :41 :04 14 Myers, have you had any communications with anyone at 09 :43 :32 15 you may answer. 09:41 :06 15 Magma after you signed the declaration? 09 :43:34 16 A. I can't answer that. 09:41 :08 16 A. No. 09 :43 :4 1 17 Q . Do you own any stock in Magma? 09 :41 :10 17 Q. During your meetings with the O'Melveny 09:43 :41 18 A. Yes, I do . 09 :41 :12 18 attorneys, did you go over in detail the content of your 09 :43 :44 19 Q. Do you know how many shares you own? 09 :41 :13 19 declaration? 09 :43 :47 20 A. About 50,000, a little bit more . 09:41 :16 20 A . Yes . 09 :43 :51 21 Q . Do you know the current approximate worth of 09 :41 :19 21 Q. And did the O'Melveny attorneys discuss with 09:43 :51 22 your holdings in Magma? 09 :41 :22 22 you ways that you would testify with respect to certain 09 :43 :55 23 A. I would guess they are about $300,000 worth . 09:41 :25 23 aspects of the declaration? 09 :43 :5 9 24 Q . Is that your worth today or the worth at the 09 :41 :29 24 MR. OBSTLER : Objection, ft's vague and 09 :44 :01 25 date that the declaration was signed? 09 :41 :31 2 5 ambiguous and it's also, I think, misleading. 09 :44 :04

244 246

6 (Pages 243 to 246) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0 13f3-41 51-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 A. They asked me questions about how I would 09 :44 :10 1 Its unclear whether you're asking him now or does he 09 :46 :32 2 testify. 09 :44 :15 2 understand now whether we were representing him then . 09:46 :34 3 Q. And did they suggest ways that they would 09 :44:15 3 Q . Do you currently understand that O'Melveny & 09 :46 :3 8 4 like to have you testify? 09 :44:18 4 Myers is representing you now? 09 :46 :40 5 MR . OBSTLER : Same objection . 09:44 :20 5 A. They are not representing me now . 09 :46:4 3 6 A. No, I don't believe so. 09 :44 :22 6 Q. When did O'Melveny Myers's representation of 09 :46 :44 7 Q. Did they engage in any mock question and 09 :44 :23 7 you cease to exist? 09 :46 :48 8 answer sessions with you? 09 :44 :26 8 A. Late November. 09 :46 :5 0 9 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . I object to the 09 :44 :30 9 Q. So you believe you were represented by 09 :46 :52 10 term "mock ." 09:44 :32 10 O'Melveny between September and late November? 09:46 :5 4 11 A. There were many question and answer sessions, 09:44 :33 11 A. Yes, 09 :46 :5 7 12 yes . 09:44 :36 12 Q. When is the first time that you heard of the 09 :46 :57 13 Q. But was there any attempt by the O'Melveny 09 :44 :36 13 dispute between Magma and Synopsys? 09 :47:02 14 attorneys to prepare you for the deposition as opposed 09 :44 :40 14 A. In late September. 09:47:04 15 to simply interviewing you? 09 :44 :45 15 Q. Who contacted you about that? 09 :47 :0 5 16 A. I'm not sure what the difference is . 09 :44:49 16 A. Beth Roemer. 09:47 :08 17 MR. OBSTLER: And I would object to that as 09:44:51 17 Q . And did she contact you by telephone? 09 :47 :16 18 vague and ambiguous. 09 :44 :52 18 A. Yes . 09 :47 :1 9 19 Q. What was your understanding as to why Magma 09:44 :53 19 Q. And what did she tell you? 09:47 :19 20 wanted to have these meetings with you? 09 :44 :59 20 A. Well, also some other people on the phone . 09:47 :22 21 A. I think they would like to prepare for the 09 :45 :01 21 MR . OBSTLER: Wait a minute . I'm going to 09 :47:2 5 22 deposition . 09 :45:05 22 object to this, If, in fact, O'Melveny was representing 09 :47:26 23 Q . Did you discuss with Magma the paragraph in 09 :45 :05 23 him at that time or he understood there to be an 09 :47 :29 24 the declaration referring to your supervisor at Magma? 09 :45 :17 24 attorney-client relationship, and if in fact Beth 09 :47 :3 1 25 A . Yes. 09:45 :21 25 Roemer, who is the general counsel of Magma, was calling 09 :47:3 4 247 249

1 Q . And what did you tell the O'Melveny attorneys 09 :45 :22 1 in connection with that relationship, that discussion is 09 :47 :36 2 about that paragraph when you were meeting with them? 09 :45 :24 2 privileged. 09 :47 :3 9 3 A. I told them I believe it referred to Joe 09 :45 :28 3 Now, Ed, I'm going to leave it up to you as 09 :47 :39 4 Hutt . 09:45:32 4 to whether or not he wants to go ahead and waive that or 09 :47 :42 5 Q. Was O'Melveny & Myers representing you during 09 :45 :33 5 not, but I want to put that out there . 09 :47 :45 6 these meetings? 09 :45 :42 6 MR . BULCHIS: Well, I agree with you, and you 09 :47 :4 8 7 A. No. 09 :45 :46 7 know, if you consult an attorney for the purpose of 09 :47 :50 8 Q . Have you ever formed an attorney-client 09 :45 :46 8 possibly establishing a relationship, even if you don't 09 :47 :53 9 relationship with the O'Melveny law firm? 09 :45:48 9 establish a relationship, that's still privileged . You 09 :47 :58 10 A. Yes . 09 :45 :51 10 know, if this led to a relationship, if this telephone 09 :48 :0 1 11 Q. When was that? 09 :45 :51 11 call, for example, was Lukas inquiring about 09:48:0 5 12 A. That was in September of 2004 . 09 :45 :52 12 representation and the possibility of representation, 09 :48:1 2 13 Q . How did you enter into an attorney-client 09 :46 :01 13 that would still be privileged in the fact that there 09:48 :1 6 14 relationship with O'Melveny & Myers in 2004? 09 :46 :03 14 was a representation that was subsequently established . 09:48 :18 15 A. There was an understanding that O'Melveny & 09 :46 :07 15 Means even more so, but even if there wasn't a 09 :48 :2 1 16 Myers would defend me and defend my testimony . 09 :46 :09 16 relationship established it would still be privileged . 09 :48:24 17 Q . Did you understand that O'Melveny Myers was 09 :46 :15 17 MR . OBSTLER : Joint information-sharing 09 :48 :26 18 acting as your attorneys beginning in September of 2004? 09 :46 :17 18 privilege if he's potentially a named attorney. 09 :48 :28 19 A. Yes . 09 :46 :20 19 MR . EDELMAN : The testimony is that Beth 09 :48 :30 20 Q. Do you currently understand that? 09 :46 :20 20 Roemer called him, so he's got a call out of the blue 09 :48 :32 21 A. Are they currently acting as my attorney? 09 :46:22 21 from Beth Roemer . There can't be any privilege that 09 :48 :3 5 22 MR . OBSTLER : Objection. 09 :46 :25 22 applies at that point. 09:48 :3 8 23 Q. Do you currently understand that O'Melveny & 09 :46 :26 23 A. Well, there were other people on the line 09 :48 :4 1 24 Myers is representing you? 09 :46 :27 24 including Mr . Bernstein of Fish and Richardson, 1 09 :48 :4 3 25 - MR . OBSTLER : Objection, vague as to time . 09 :46 :29 25 believe, who were counsel earlier in this case until 09 :48 :45 248 250 t

7 (Pages 247 to 250 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 they were replaced with O'Melveny and Myers . I had the 09 :48 :47 1 discussions to set up a meeting and we went about 09:50 :55 2 same understanding with them . 09:48 :54 2 arranging for that, but the meeting didn't happen . 09:51:03 3 Q . You made a reference to Mr . Bernstein? 09 :48 :58 3 Q. Do you have any understanding as to why Fish 09:51 :05 4 A . Yes. 09:49 :01 4 and Richardson was ultimately not retained by Magma to 09 :51 :08 5 Q . Do you know his full name? 09 :49:01 5 represent it in this matter? 09 :51 : 11 6 A. Matthew Bernstein, I believe. 09 :49 :02 6 A. No. 09:51 :14 7 Q . And Matthew Bernstein was participating in 09 :49:04 7 Q. Did you ever divulge any of the facts 09 :51 :14 8 this initial call? 09 :49:08 _ 8 surrounding the statements in your declaration to Fish 09:51 :2 2 9 A . Yes. 09:49 :08 9 and Richardson attorneys? 09:5 1:2 4 10 Q . And anybody else other than Beth Roemer and 09 :49 :09 10 A. No. 09:51 :25 11 Matthew Bernstein? 09 :49 :11 11 Q. Did you ever divulge any such facts to Beth 09:51 :2 6 12 A . I believe there was a second lawyer also from 09:49 :13 12 Roemer? 09 :51 :29 13 the same firm, but I'm not sure of his name . 09:49 :15 13 MR . BULCHIS : Wait a minute now. You're 09:51 :3 0 14 Q. What was the subject of the discussion? 09 :49 :17 14 asking him did he disclose the information that is in 09 :51 :3 1 15 MR. OBSTLER: Well -- 09 :49:21 15 his declaration . It sounds to me that's a communication 09:51 :3 5 16 MR. BULCHIS: I will object . And I will 09 :49 :22 16 with counsel, and I would instruct the witness not to 09:51 :3 8 17 allow you to answer, Dr . van Ginneken, to the extent or 09 :49 :25 17 answer. 09 :51 :4 0 18 to the point in time where in your mind you were 09 :49 :28 18 Q. Did Beth Roemer ever act as your attorney in 09:51 :4 1 19 inquiring about establishing an attorney-client 09 :49 :30 19 2004? 09 :51 :43 20 relationship with either Beth Roemer, Fish and 09 :49 :33 20 A. No. 09 :51 :4 5 21 Richardson attorneys or the O'Melveny attorneys. So up 09:49 :36 21 Q . Did you ever discuss with Beth Roemer the 09:51 :45 22 until the point where you were inquiring about 09:49 :40 22 facts surrounding the use of Synopsys inventions in 09:51 :4 8 23 establishing a relationship you may answer . After that 09 :49 :42 23 2004? 09 :51 :52 24 you should not answer. 09 :49 :44 24 MR. OBSTLER: I'm going to object to that. 1 09:51 :54 25 MR . OBSTLER : I would also like to object on 09 :49 :46 2 5 think you need to establish a foundation that Beth 09:51 :57 251 253

1 the ground of joint information-sharing privilege . 09 :49:49 1 Roemer was the only person he was talking to . I think 09 :51 :59 2 Q . At any time in this initial call did you 09 :49 :52 2 if Beth Roemer is on the line with other attorneys then 09:52 :00 3 inquire of Beth Roemer or the-Fish and Richardson 09:49 :55 3 that conversation is prIvileged . 09 :52 :0 2 4 attorneys whether or not they would represent you in the 09 :49:56 4 A. I never discussed any of this Information 09:52 :08 5 matter? 09 :49:59 5 with Beth Roemer where my counsel was not present. 09 :52:1 1 6 A. Yes, that was discussed . 09:50 :01 6 Q. After you had this discussion with Fish and 09 :52 :19 7 Q . Was that discussed at the beginning of the 09 :50:02 7 Richardson attorneys, at some point you learned that 09:52 :23 8 call? 09 :50:04 8 O'Melveny & Myers was now going to represent Magm a, 09 :52:2 5 9 A . Yes. 09 :50 :04 9 correct? 09 :52 :2 7 10 Q . And you were the one who raised that 09 :50 :04 10 A. Yes. 09 :52 :30 11 possibility? 09 :50 :11 11 Q. When did you have your first discussion with 09:52 :3 0 12 A. No. They raised that possibility . 09 :50 :12 12 attorneys from O'Melveny concerning this dispute? 09 :52 :3 2 13 Q . Can you tell me the other subject matter 09 :50 :14 13 MR . OB$TLER: I'm going to object to the 09 :52 :38 14 discussed on that call? 09:50 :21 14 extent this calls for attorney-client communications . 09:52 :4 1 15 MR . BULCHIS: I would instruct you not to 09 :50 :22 15 A. I had a meeting with them. I believe it was 09 :52 :47 16 answer as to anything that occurred after their 09 :50:24 16 early October . 09 :52 :52 17 representation of you was discussed . 09 :50 :27 17 Q. Who was present at that meeting? 09 :52 :5 4 18 A. Before the representation was discussed they 09 :50 :28 18 A. George Riley and Steve Melvin, and for only a 09:52 :56 19 notified me of the lawsuit that had been filed by 09 :50 :35 19 small part of the meeting Beth Roemer, 09 :53:0 6 20 Synopsys. 09 :50 :38 20 Q. Where did that meeting take place? 09 :53:09 21 Q. Did you have any further discussions with 09 :50 :38 21 A. At the Magma offices. 09 :5 3:10 22 anyone from Fish and Richardson in 2004? 09 :50:42 22 Q. Other than that meeting with Mr. Riley and 09:53 :1 1 23 A . No. 09:50:46 23 the three meetings with Mr. Riley after the declaration 09 :53:1 9 24 -Q. Did you have any -- 09 :50:47 24 was signed, have you had any other meetings with Mr . 09 :53 :22 25 A . Well, that's not entirely true . We had 09 :50 :50 25 Riley? 09 :53 :24 252 254

8 (Pages 251 to 254) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-803-aa30b20e3544 I A. No, 09 :53 :27 1 A . September and - 09 :55 :2 6 2 Q. Other than the three meetings after the 09 :53 :28 2 Q. November . 09 :55 :27 3 declaration was signed and the initial meeting with 09 :53 :32 3 A . And November. Just one . 09 :55 :28 4 O'Melveny & Myers, have you had any other meetings with 09 :53 :34 4 Q. So you had one meeting with O'Melveny & Myers 09 :55 :32 5 attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers? 09 :53 :36 5 during the time you thought that they were representing 09 :55 :34 6 A. No . 09 :53 :41 6 you? 09 :55 :3 6 7 Q. So you believe in total you've had four 09 :53 :41 7 A. Yes . 09 :55 :38 8 meetings with attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers, correct? 09 :53 :45 8 Q. Did you have -- 09 :55 :38 9 A. Correct . 09 :53 :48 9. A. There were a couple of phone calls in 09:55 :4 1 10 Q. At that initial meeting that you had with 09 :53 :48 10 addition to that . 09 :55 :44 11 O'Melveny & Myers, did you discuss with O'Melveny & 09 :53 :53 11 Q. And who did you have those phone calls with? 09 :55:44 12 Myers any issues surrounding the inventions in the '446 09 :53 :55 12 A. We exchanged also E-mail messages . I believe 09:55 :4 7 13 or '438 patents? 09 :53 :57 13 George, George Riley . 09 :55 :57 14 A. After the initial meeting? 09 :54 :06 14 Q. Did any of the communications that occurred 09 :55 :58 15 Q. During the initial meetings . 09 :54 :08 15 from September through November of 2004 concern any 09 :56 :0 0 16 MR . BULCHIS : So you're asking him the 09 :54 :09 16 negotiation with Magma pertaining to the terms of any 09 :56 :03 17 content of his communication with O'Melveny & Myers? 09 :54:11 17 written agreement between you and Magma? 09 :56 :08 18 MR . EDELMAN : Right . 09:54:14 18 MR . BULCHIS: I object to the question. It 09:56 :10 19 MR . BULCHIS: I would instruct the witness 09 :54 :15 19 inquires into attorney-client communications. I'll 09 :56 :13 20 not to answer. 09 :54 :16 20 instruct the witness not to answer . 09:56 :1 7 21 Q. During your initial meeting with O'Melveny & 09 :54:16 21 MR . EDELMAN : Well, Mr. van Ginneken was 09 :56:19 22 Myers, did you discuss with O'Melveny & Myers the 09 :54 :18 22 negotiating adversely to Magma on opposite sides of the 09 :56 :2 1 23 possibility that O'Melveney & Myers would represent you? 09 :54 :19 23 fence and there would be no privilege . 09:56 :27 24 A. Yes . 09 :54 :24 24 MR. BULCHIS : But you're asking him for his 09 :56 :29 25 Q. And who brought up that subject? 09 :54 :24 25 communications with the O'Melveny attorneys during this 09 :56 :3 1 255 257

1 MR . OBSTLER : Objection. 09:54 .27 1 period of time, and that is privileged information . 09 :56 :34 2 MR . BULCHIS: I think that's a foundation 09 :54 :28 2 Q. Were there any negotiations between yourself 09 :56 :38 3 question . I think that's proper . 09 :54:30 3 and Magma from September through November of 2004 09 :56 :39 4 A . I believe I did . 09:54 :34 4 concerning any issue? 09 :56:4 2 5 Q. And did you form an attorney-client 09 :54 :36 5 MR . BULCHIS: Again, I think that Inquires 09 :56:46 6 relationship with O'Melveny & Myers at that initial 09 :54 :39 6 about communications because you're asking did you and 09 :56 :49 7 meeting? 09 :54 :41 7 Magma, through their attorneys, negotiate, and that's a 09 :56 :51 8 MR. OBSTLER: Objection . It calls for a 09 :54:43 8 communication . 09 :56 :55 9 conclusion., 09 :54 :45 9 MR . DBSTLER : Yeah. And I'd also like to say 09 :56 :56 10 A. I believe that I had a client-attorney 09 :54 :46 10 I think he's clearly established that he believed he had 09 :56 :5 8 11 relationship, yes, at that meeting . 09:54:50 11 an attorney-client relationship, and to the extent that 09:57 :00 12 Q. Did you ever sign any written fee agreement 09 :54 :52 12 you're trying to get around that, I think it's improper 09 :57 :03 13 with O'Melveny & Myers? 09 :54 :55 13 at this point. 09 :57 :0 5 14 A . No, I did not. 09 :54 :56 14- MR. EDELMAN : I'm not trying to get around 09 :57 :0 5 15 Q. Did you ever sign any agreement with 09 :54:57 15 it. I'm trying to see whether Magma is using an 09 :57 :07 16 O'Melveny & Myers during the time period of September 09 :54 :59 16 attorney-client relationship to shield obviously 09 :57 :1 0 17 through November of 2004? 09 :55 :01 17 nonprivileged communications, and if Mr . van Ginneken is 09 :57 :1 2 18 A . No . 09 :55 :05 18 negotiating with Magma there's not going to be an 09 :57:15 19 Q. Have you ever signed any sort of joint 09 :55 :05 19 attorney-client privilege . Is the instruction not to 09 :57 :1 7 20 defense agreement with O'Melveny & Myers or Magma? 09 :55:09 20 answer on that question? 09:57 :20 21 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . No foundation. 09 :55:12 21 MR . BULCHIS: That's correct. 09:57:2 1 22 A. No. 09 :55 :15 22 Q. Did you ever consider the possibility of 09 :57 :22 23 Q. How many meetings did you have with 09 :55 :15 23 entering into any sort of joint defense arrangement with 09 :57 :25 24 O'Melveney and Myers between September and November of 09 :55 :21 24 Magma? 09 :57 :28 25 2004? 09 :55 :24 25 MR .OBSILER : Objection . 09 :57 :3 1 256 258

9 (Pages 255 to 258) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-a830b20e3544 1 A. Yes. 09 :57 :32 1 called, yes. 10 :00:3 9 2 MR . OBSTLER : No foundation . 09 :57:33 2 A. Viorica Simion called my wife . 10 :00 :40 3 Q . When did you first consider that possibility? 09 :57 ;34 3 Q . Would you spell that? 10 :00:4 3 4 A. In September . 09 :57 :38 4 A. Viorica Simion. 10 :00 :44 C 5 Q. Did you ever ask Magma to reimburse you for 09 :57 :42 5 Q. Spell the last name . 10 :00 :46 6 costs or expenses that you would incur relating to this 09 :57:47 6 A . S-I-M-I-O-N . 10:00 :4 8 7 dispute? 09 :57 :50 7 Q. And who was that? 10 :00 :5 4 8 MR . BULCHIS : I object to the question . You 09 :57 :52 8 A . Who was that? 10 :00 :58 9 mean an attorney at Magma or representing Magma or do 09 :57 :53 9 Q . Yes. 10 :00:5 9 10 you mean a nonattorney? 09 :57 :56 10 A . That's the wife of Patrick Groeneveld . 10:01 :00 11 Q. Let's start with a nonattorney. 09 :57 :57 11 Q . And what was said in this call to your wife? 10 :01 :07 12 MR. BULCHIS: You may answer that question . 09 :58 :00 12 A. I don't know . She spoke to my wife . 10 :01 :1 1 13 A . Did I ever? Could you repeat the question? 09 :58 :03 13 Q . And did your wife tell you what it is that 10 :01 :1 3 14 MR . EDELMAN : Can you read it back . 09:58:13 14 she -- 10 :01 :15 15 (Record read as requested .) 09 :58 :14 15 A. Yes. 10 :01 :15 16 A. Yes. 09 :58:15 16 MR. BULCHIS : I assume that this person is 10:01 :1 6 17 Q . And when did that happen? 09 :58:15 17 not an attorney who called or do not -- I don't know who 10 :01:1 7 18 A. I asked Magma to pay for the trip to 09 :58 :19 18 this person is . 10 :01 :2 2 19 California for the first meeting with O'Melveny . 09 :58:29 19 THE WITNESS : No, she's not an attorney . 10 :01 :23 20 Q. Did Magma pay for that trip? 09 :58 :34 20 Q. What did your wife say had been told to her? 10 :01 :24 21 A. Yes. 09 :58 :36 21 THE WITNESS: Is that privileged? 10 :01 :28 22 Q . Any other costs or expenses that you asked 09 :58 :36 22 MR . BULCHIS : I don't believe so. Let me 10 :01 :32 23 Magma to reimburse? 09:58 :40 23 consult with my client for a minute, may I, pending a 10 :01 :3 5 24 MR. BULCHIS : Again, you're talking about 09 :58 :41 24 question? 10 :01 :39 25 nonattorneys? 09 :58:43 25 MR . EDELMAN : I guess we're off the record . 10:01 :5 1 259 261 .

1 MR . EDELMAN : Nonattorneys . 09 :58 :45 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 10:01 ;53 2 A . No . 09:58 :46 2 time now is approximately 10:01 a .m. 10 :01 :5 5 3 Q . Did you ask any attorneys? 09:58 :52 3 (Recess .) 10 :02 :4 5 4 MR. BULCHIS : To the extent the question 09 :58 :55 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 10 :03 :00 5 inquires about Or. van Ginneken's fee relationship with 09 :58:57 5 The time now is approximately 10 :02 a .m. 10 :03 :02 6 the attorneys he thought were representing him in the 09 :59:00 6 A. Well, my wife told me that Viorica Simion had 10 :03 :06 7 beginning, I would instruct the witness not to answer, 09 :59:03 7 said that I should be concerned and I should be 10 :03 :1 1 8 A. Other than that, no. 09:59 :10 8 considering hiring my own counsel . 1003:1 3 9 Q . Did you have any fee relationship with 09:59 :11 9 Q . What did you understand was meant by the 10 :03 :26 10 O'Melveny & Myers in 2004? 09 :59 :13 10 statement that you should be concerned? 10 :03 :29 11 A . No . 09:59 :18 11 A . That there could be a potential conflict of 10 :03 :34 12 Q. What happened in November of 2004 to end 09 :59 :19 12 interest in having the same law firm defend me as well 10 :03:3 9 13 O'Melveny & Myers's representation of you? 09 :59 :27 13 as Magma . 10:03 :4 5 14 A . I reconsidered my position being defended by 09 :59:35 14 Q. Before that point, had you given any concern 10 :03 :4 6 15 O'Melveny, and I asked for certain agreements, and I 09 :59 :44 15 to the possibility there would be a conflict of 10 :03 :49 16 also sought counsel of a different attorney. 09:59:53 16 interest? 10:03 :5 1 17 Q . And what caused you to want to end your 09 :59 :57 17 A . Not really. 10:03 :54 18 attorney-client relationship with O'Melveny & Myers? 10 :00:04 18 Q . After your wife received that call, did you 10 :03:5 5 19 MR . BULCHIS : Again, any of these questions, 10 :00 :08 19 talk to anybody else other than attorneys at O'Melveny & 10 :04 :0 1 20 to the extent it requires you to testify about an 10 :00 ; 10 20 Myers about the possibility of a conflict of interest? 10 ;04 ;0 5 21 attorney-client communication you should not answer . 10:00 :14 21 A . No . 10 :04 :1 1 22 A. Someone called my wife . 10 :00 :17 22 Q . Were there any other communications you 10 :04 :1 1 23 Q . Who called your wife? 10 :00:23 23 received from nonattorneys at Magma relating to-this 10 :04 :1 8 24 THE WITNESS : Do I answer that? 10 :00:32 24 dispute in 2004? 10 :04 :20 25 MR. BULCHIS: Well, you can answer about who 10 :00 :33 25 A. Other communications including phone calls? 10 :04 :22 260 262 10 (Pages 259 to 262)

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151- 8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q. Yes. 10 :04:26 1 at the moment, but I should be aware of that . 10:07 :29 2 A. Yes. 10 :04 :27 2 Q. Did you discuss with Mr . Groeneveld during 10 :07 :3 1 3 Q . And who else communicated with you from 10 :04 :29 3 this conversation the merits or potential merits of the 10 :07 :3 6 4 Magma? 10:04 :33 4 claims Synopsys had asserted? 10:07 :4 0 5 A . Oh, from Magma? 10 :04 :33 5 A. No, I don't believe so . 10:07 :44 6 Q. Yes . 10:04 :34 6 Q. Did you believe at the time of your 10 :07 :44 7 A . Oh . No. 10 :04 :35 7 discussion with Mr. Groeneveld that the claims Synopsys 10 :07 :47 8 Q. Did you talk to Rajeev Madhavam at any time 10 :04 :40 8 had asserted may be meritorious? 10 :07 :49 9 in 2004 about this dispute? 10 :04 :44 -9 A. I don't know how to answer that question . 10 :07:5 3 10 A. He was present during part of the meeting at 10 :04:49 10 Q. Did you think there was a possibility 10 :07 :59 11 the Magma building. 10 :04:54 11 Synopsys claims were legitimate or did you think the 10 :08 :02 12 Q. And that was a meeting at which O'Melveny 10 :04 :55 12 claims were just frivolous? 10 :08:0 6 13 attorneys were present? 10 :04:59 13 A. There was a possibility that some of the 10 :08:08 14 A, Yes . 10 :05 :01 14 claims might be found legitimate . 10:08 :1 0 15 Q. Other than the meetings at which O'Melveny 10 :05:01 15 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Groeneveld in this 10:08:1 3 16 attorneys were present, did you have any other 10 :05 :03 16 conversation any issue pertaining to inventorship of the 10 :08:1 6 17 communication with Rajeev Madhavam in 2004 concerning 10 :05 :05 17 patents? 10:08 :20 18 this dispute? 10 :05 :08 19 A. I don't recall discussing that . 10:08 :2 2 19 A. No . 10:05 :10 19 Q. Well, at the time you had this discussion 10:08 :24 20 Q . Did you have any communications with any 10 :05:11 20 with Mr. Groeneveld, were you aware that the '446 and 10 :08 :26 21 nonattorneys at Magma in 2004 concerning this dispute, 10 :05 :13 21 '438 patents were the subject of this suit? 10 :08 :30 wi. 22 other than the meeting with Mr. Madhavam and the 10 :05 :19 22 A. Yes. 10:08 :33 23 O'Melveny attorneys? 10 :05 :21 23 Q. Did you discuss those patents at all with Mr . 10:08 :33 24 A. Yes, I did . 10 :05 :30 24 Groeneveld? 10 :08 :3 6 25 Q. And who else at Magma did you communicate 10 :05:31 25 A. No. 10 :08 :3 7 263 265

I with? 10 :05 :33 1 Q . So at some point did you inform O'Melveny & 10 :08 :38 1. 2 A. I communicated with Patrick Groeneveld, 10 :05 :34 2 Myers that you no longer wanted them to represent you? 10:08 :52 3 Q. And how many times did you communicate with 10 :05 :43 3 A. Yes. 10:08 :59 4 Mr . Groeneveld? 10 :05 :46 4 Q. Who did you make that communication to? 10:08 :5 9 5 A. I think just once . 10 :05 :48 5 A. Well, I think the way it happened was that I 10:09:0 2 6 Q . And who initiated that communication? 10 :05 :49 6 sought the advice of a different attorney, Terry 10 :09:1 2 7 A. I believe he did . 10:05:53 7 Venneberg, and discussed with him some of the 10 :09 :1 6 8 Q. And what did he tell you when he initiated 10 :05 :56 8 negotiations, and he contacted O'Melveny . 10:09:2 0 9 the communication? 10 :05 :59 9 Q. What are you referring to by "the 10:09 :2 6 10 A. Oh, I remember another communication . We 10 :06 :00 10 negotiations"? 10 :09:2 8 11 kind of discussed the lawsuit . 10:06 :11 11 A . You know, we were talking about entering an 10 :09 :30 12 Q . What did you discuss about the lawsuit with 10 :06 :15 12 agreement . 10:09 :33 13 Mr. Groeneveld? 10 :06:17 13 Q. An agreement with Magma? 10 :09 :37 14 - A. Let's see. What did we discuss? We 10 :06 :23 14 A. Yes. 10:09 :3 9 15 discussed how -- that they were surprised how this 10 :06 :28 15 Q. And what agreement with Magma were you 10 :09 :39 16 lawsuit got started. We discussed -- what else did we 10 :06 :33 16 talking about? 10 :09:41 17 discuss? I'm not that clear, exactly, you know, of 10 :06 :43 17 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . 10 :09:4 1 18 where we thought it would go, I think . We discussed -- 10 :06:49 18 MR . BULCHIS : I object to the question as 10 :09:42 19 I think we also discussed, you know, potential conflicts 10:06 :59 19 inquiring about attorney-client communications and 10 :09 :43 20 of interest between Magma and myself. 10 :07 :03 20 instruct the witness not to answer. 10:09 :45 21 Q . Well, and what was the discussion on the 10 :07 :07 21 Q . Were you negotiating with Magma in 2004 about 10 :09:50 fi 22 topic of potential conflicts of interest? 10 :07 :09 22 the possibility of entering into an agreement with 10 :09 :53 23 A . I think Patrick said something like to the 10 :07 :12 23 Magma? 10 :09 :56 24 extent that, you know, there was a danger that all the 10 :07 :20 24 A. Yes. 10:09 :56 25 blame would be put on me . Said it didn't look like it 10 :07:25 25 Q. And what was the nature of the agreement that 10:09:5 7 264 266

11 (Pages 263 to 266 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 you were negotiating with Magma? 10:10 :00 1 relationship with Magma in addition to the 10 :12 :48 2 MR . BULCHIS : You may answer that . 10 :10:05 2 attorney-client relationship you had with O'Melveny & 10 :12 :51. 3 A. We were negotiating about a release . 10 :10 :07 3 Myers? 10 :12 :5 3 4 Q . Were you concerned that it was important for 10 :10 :14 4 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . That's a misleading 10 :12 :55 5 you to get a release of any claims that Magma may assert 10 :10:21 5 question . Different time periods . Vague as to time . 10:12 :57 6 against you? 10 :10 :23 6 A. Between September and November? 10 :13 :04 7 A . Yes, 10 :10 :24 7 Q. Yes . 10 :13 :0 8 8 Q. Why were you concerned about that? 10:10:24 -8 A. Yes. 10 :13 :08 9 A . I was concerned that Magma would have claims, 10 :10 :27 9 Q. Did you have a joint defense relationship 10 :13 :09 10 could claim perhaps damages for the results of using 10 :10 :36 10 with Magma after November of 2004? 10 :13 :11 11 Synopsys information at Magma . 10:10 :44 11 A. No . 10 :13:1 3 12 Q . You ultimately entered into an agreement with 10 :10 :49 12 Q. So were there written communications between 10 :13 :13 13 Magma which contained a release, correct? 10 :11 :00 13 Mr . Bulchis and Magma in February of 2005 concerning the 10:13 :1 14 A. Yes, I did . 10 :11 :02 14 negotiation of a release? 10 :13 :22 15 Q . When was that agreement entered into? 10 :11 :03 15 A. I have to assume yes . 10 :13 :27 16 A. I believe that was entered into in February . 10 :11 :07 16 Q . Did you see any of those communications? 10:13 :31 17 Q . And did you have negotiations with Magma 10 :11 :18 17 A. Did I see -- I saw the final release that was 10 :13 :35 18 about the form of that release before it was agreed? 10 :11 :22 18 signed . 10:13 :42 19 A . Me personally? 10 :11 :27 19 Q. Was there a difference in the scope of the 10 :13 :42 20 Q . Yeah . 10 :11 :28 20 release that you requested and the release that Magma 10 :13 :44 21 A . No. 10 :11 :31 21 gave you? 10 :13 :48 ! 22 Q . Did your attorney have negotiations on that 10 :11 :31 22 A. There were negotiations about content of the 10 :13 :50 23 subject? 10 :11 :33 23 release, yes . 10 :13 :5 4 24 A, Yes. 10 :11 :35 24 Q. Can you describe what the negotiations were 10 :13 :54 25 Q . Was that Mr, Bulchis? 10:11 :35 2 5 over the content of the release? 10:13 :56 267 269

1 A . For February that was Mr . Bulchis, yes . 10 :11 :39 1 MR . BULCHIS : Again, there was actually -- 10 :13 :57 2 Q. Was there any other attorney that was 10 :11 :42 2 witness may not be aware, but counsel for the parties 10 :13 :59 3 involved in negotiating the release before February? 10 :11 :43 3 agreed on a joint defense. 10 :14 :03 4 A . Before I had Mr. Bulchis I hired Mr. 10 :11 :47 4 MR . EDELMAN : Excuse me . That's completely 10 :14 :05 5 Venneberg. 10 :11 :51 5 inappropriate. 10 :14 :0 7 6 Q. And were there negotiations between Mr. 10 :11 :51 6 MR . BULCHIS: No, it's not. I am instruct -- 10 :14 :07 7 Venneberg and Magma about the form of the release before 10 :11 :55 7 there was a joint -- I'm saying to you that there was a 10 :14 :09 8 February of 2004? 10 :11 :57 8 joint defense agreement up until sometime in February . 10 :14 :12 9 A . Yes . 10 :12 :00 9 I don't have the exact date in mind, maybe counsel for 10 :14 :14 10 Q . And were there any written communications 10 :12 :00 10 Magma knows, but there was a joint defense agreement up 10 :14 :17 11 exchanged as part of those negotiations before February? 10 :12 :02 11 until that time, and the witness may not be aware of 10 :14 :20 12 A . Yes . 10 :12 :07 12 what that means. He's a layperson, he's not an 10:14 :23 13 Q . And were there any written communications 10 :12:07 13 attorney . It was negotiated between counsel for the 10 :14 :26 14 exchanged between Mt. Bulchis and Magma in February of 10 :12 :09 14 parties, and therefore communications involving this up 10 :14 :30 15 2004 concerning the release ? 10 :12 :12 15 until that date are privileged, and I'm going to 10 :14 :3 3 16 MR. OBSTLER: I'm going to object to that. 1 10 :12 :14 16 instruct him not to answer . 10:14 :36 17 think there's a joint defense privilege information . 10:12 :19 17 Q. Sir, is your testimony that the content of 10:14 :37 18 MR. EDELMAN : The negotiating the release? 1 10 :12 :23 18 negotiations between Mr. van Ginneken and Magma over the 10 :14:39 19 don't see how that' s subject to a privilege . 10 :12 :25 19 scope of release that Magma would give van Ginneken 10 :14 :42 20 MR . BULCHIS : Well, I would agree up until 10 :12 :28 20 would be protected by privilege? Is that your position? 10 :14 :47 21 the point the joint defense relationship ended , and I 10 :12 :29 21 MR . B.ULCHIS : If It was part of a joint 10 :14 :51 22 don't have that specific date in mind , but there was a 10 :12 :33 22 defense agreement, yes. 10 :14 :5 2 23 specific date that we informed Magma that we no longer 10 :12 :36 .23 MR . EDELMAN : Well, we will have to move on 10 :14 :53 24 had a joint defense - relationship . 10 :12 :40 24 it. 10 :14:5 5 25 Q . You understand that you had a joint defense 10 :12 :45 2 5 Q. Was the scope of the release that you were 10 :14 :56 268 270 1

12 (Pages 267 to 270) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-03-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 seeking broader than the scope of the release that Magma 10 :14 :59 1 O'Melveny attorneys, were you upset about the fact that 10 :17:26 2 ultimately provided to you? 10:15 :0 3 2 a declaration had been made public? 10 :17:2 7 3 A. At which point in time? 10 :15 :07 3 A . Yes . 10 :17 :3 0 4 Q. Well, when was it that you initially sought 10 :15 :08 4 Q. And did you believe at the time you met with 10 :17 :30 l 5 the release from Magma? 10 :15 :12 5 the O'Melveny attorneys that the publication of the 10 :17 :32 6 A. in November, late November. 10 :15 :16 6 declaration had harmed your reputation? 10 :17 :35 7 Q. Was the scope of the release that you 10 :15 :1 8 7 A. Yes. 10 :17 :39 8 initially sought in November broader than the scope of 10 :15 :19 8 Q. Did you decide after the publication of the 10 :17 :39 9 the release that Magma ultimately gave to you? 10 :15 :22 9 declaration that it was a mistake to have signed the 10 :17 :45 10 A. No, I don't believe so . 10 :15 :25 10 declaration? 10 :17 :48 11 Q. Has Magma indicated to you at any time that 10 :15 :26 11 A . I'm not sure about that . 10 :17 :52 12 you are in violation of any agreement that you've 10 :15 :33 12 Q . Do you believe you received bad advice in 10 :17 :53 13 reached with Magma pertaining to the release? 10 :15 :36 13 signing the declaration? 10 :17 :5 6 14 A . Pertaining to the release? 10 :15 :40 14 A. I'm undecided about that . 10:18 :00 15 Q. Yes. 10:15 :4 3 15 Q. Do you believe there were certain issues on 10 :18 :02 16 MR . BULCHIS: Can you repeat that question, 10 :15 :51 16 which you should have sought advice before you signed 10 :18 :09 17 please. 10 :15 :53 17 the declaration on which you didn't seek advice? 10 :18 :1 0 18 (Record read as requested .) 10:15:5 3 18 A. Yes. 10 :18 :14 19 MR. BULCHIS: You may answer that. 10 :15 :58 19 Q. What issues were those? 10 :18 :14 20 A. No . 10 :16:00 20 A . I believe that it might have been possible to 10 :18 :17 21 Q. So the meetings that you had with O'Melveny & 10 :16 :00 2 1 remove additional items from the declaration which we 10 :18 :26 22 Myers attorneys after the declaration was signed, at the 10 :16 :07 22 did not attempt to remove and which Synopsys might have 10 :18 :31 23 time those meetings occurred O'Melveny & Myers was not 10 :16:11 23 agreed to . 10 :18 :37 24 representing you, correct? 10 :16 :14 24 Q . The additional items that you thought might 10 :18:38 25 A. At the time? Which time? 10 :16 :17 25 have been removed are items that are otherwise true ; is 10 :18 :40 271 273

1 Q. During the meetings that you had with 10 :16 :19 1 that correct? 10 :18 :44 2 O'Melveny & Myers after the declaration was signed . 10 :16 :21 2 A. That's correct . 10 :18 :44 3 A. Yes . 10 :16 :25 3 Q. Now, yesterday you testified about the fact 10 :18 :45 4 Q. And was there any joint defense relationship 10 :16 :25 4 that you say you didn't get an opportunity to review the 10:18 :53 5 between you and O'Melveny & Myers during those meetings? 10 :16 :28 5 exhibits to the declaration . Do you recall that 10 :18 :56 6 A. No . 10 :16 :33 6 testimony? 10:18 :58 7 Q. Did you meet with any O'Melveny attorneys 10 :16 :34 7 A. Yes. 10 :18 :5 8 8 during the deposition yesterday whether during lunch or 10 :16 :39 8 Q. Did you ask to see the exhibits to the 10 :18 :58 9 during a break In the deposition? 10 :16 :42 9 declaration? 10 :19 :03 10 A . No . 10 :16 :45 1 0 A. No. 10 :19 :04 11 Q. During these meetings with the O'Melveny 10 :16 :45 11 Q. Did you ask Synopsys at any point to see the 10 :19 :04 12 attorneys after the declaration was signed, did the 10 :16 :51 12 exhibits? 10 :19 :08 13 O'Melveny attorneys discuss each page of the declaration 10 :16 :54 13 A. No. 10 :19 :1 0 14 with you? 10 :16 :58 14 Q. Did you instruct your counsel to get a copy 10 :19 :10 15 A. Yes . 10 :17 :02 15 of the exhibits? 10 :19 :1 3 16 Q . Did they walk you through each paragraph of 10 :17:02 16 A. No. 10:19 :1 6 17 the declaration? 10 :17 :05 1 7 Q. Do you know whether in fact Synopsys had 10 :19 :17 18 MR . OBSTLER : Objection to the term "walk you 10 :17 :08 18 provided a copy of all of the exhibits to your counsel . 10 :19 :21 19 through ." 10 :17:09 19 before you signed the declaration? 10 :19 :24 20 A. We looked at every paragraph, yes . 10:17 :12 20 A. No. 10:19 :2 5 21 Q. And at the time that you had met -- you were 10 :17 :14 21 Q. So when you say you didn't have an 10 :19 :25 22 meeting with the O'Melveny attorneys, were you aware 10 :17 :19 22 opportunity to review the exhibits, is that merely a 10 :19 :28 23 that the declaration had been made public? 10 :17 :20 23 reference to the fact that the exhibits were not in 10 :19 :31 24 A. Yes . 10 :17 :24 24 front of you when you signed? 10 :19 :3 4 25 Q. At the time you were meeting with the 10 :17 :24 25 A. Yes. 10 :19 :35 272 274

13 (Pages 271 to 274) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 I Q . Do you have any information to indicate that 10 :19 :35 1 meetings after the declaration was signed about the 10 :22 :26 2 Synopsys did not, in fact, provide a copy of all the 10:19 :39 2 inventions differ from the information you provided to 10 :22 :28 3 exhibits to your counsel before you signed the 10 :19 :42 3 O'Melveny in 2004 ? 10:22 :3 2 4 declaration? 10 :19 :15 4 A . Not substantially . 10:22 :3 5 5 A . No, 10:19 :48 5 MR . EDEI MAN : I'd like to mark as Exhibit 30 10 :22 :56 6 Q . Did anyone indicate to you that they didn't 10 :19 :48 6 a letter dated Februa ry 4 , 2005 . 10 :22 :58 7 want you to review the exhibits? 10 :19 :57 7 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 30 .) 10:23 :2 3 8 A . No . 10 :19 :59 8 Q . Is the letter that has been marked as Exhibit 10 :23:23 9 Q . Why did you not ask to view the exhibits 10 :20 :00 9 30 a true and correct copy of a letter agreement that 10 :23:25 10 before signing the declaration? 10 :20 :03 10 you signed on Februa ry 4, 2005? 10 :23:28 11 A . I don't know . 10 :20 :08 11 Do you have an answer to the question or do 10 :23:32 12 Q . Did you feel like you knew enough to know the 10 :20 :08 12 you need it read back? 10 :25 :16 13 declaration was accurate without reviewing the exhibits? 10 :20 :11 13 (Record read as requested .) 10:25 :2 6 14 A . Yes . 10 :20 :14 14 A. Yes, I believe so . 10:25:2 7 15 Q . And was that at least partly because the 10 :20 :14 15 Q . And is that a true and correct copy of your 10 :25 :28 16 documents that were being discussed in the declaration 10 :20 :20 16 signature on page 2 of the document ? 10 :25 :30 17 were documents that you had authored while you were at 10 :20 :22 17 A . Yes, it is. 10 :25 :3 4 18 Synopsys? 10 :20 :25 18 Q. If you go to page 1 of the document, do you 10 :25:35 19 A. Yes. 10 :20 :27 19 see it makes reference to an agreement to provide 10 :25:41 20 Q . So you felt like you knew those documents 10 :20 :28 20 assistance to Magma? 10 :25:45 21 pretty well at the time you signed the declaration? 10 :20 :30 21 A. Uh-huh. 10 :25:4 7 22 A . Yes . 10 :20 :33 22 Q. Other than meeting with Magma on three 10 :25 :48 23 Q. Now, when you met with the OrMelveny 10 :20 :34 23 occasions after the declaration was signed on March 10 :25:53 24 attorneys after the declaration was signed, did you 10 :20 :59 24 20th, what other assistance have you provided to Magma 10 :25:56 25 discuss with the O'Melveny attorneys when it was that 10 :21 :03 2 5 under this agreement?' 10:26:00 275 277

I you conceived inventions that were contained in the '446 10 :21 :05 1 1 A. I've helped Magma recover slides, 10 :26 :01 2 and '438 patents? 10 :21 :09 2 Q. Sorry, you said slides? 10 :26 :1 3 3 A. Yes. 10 :21 :13 3 A. Yeah. The slides that were marked . 10 :26 :14 4 Q. Did you go through the inventions in the '446 10:21 :13 4 MR . BULCHIS: You're referring to Exhibit 9? 10 :26:21 5 and '438 patents and tell them which ones that you had 10 :21 :16 5 THE WITNESS : Exhibit 9, yes . 10:26 :23 6 conceived at Synopsys? 10 :21 :21 6 Q. And Magma requested that you try to find 10 :26 :24 7 A. Yes . 10 :21 :23 7 those slides? 10 :26 :2 6 8 Q. And did you tell them -- and did you give 10:21 :23 8 A. Yes. 10 :26 :2 7 9 them a list of any inventions that you did not conceive 10 :21 :26 9 Q . Who at Magma requested you do that? 10 :26 :27 10 when you were at Synopsys? 10 :21 :29 1 0 MR. OBSTLER : I'm going to object to the 10 :26:30 11 A . I'm not sure what you mean by a list of, but 10 :21 :33 1 1 extent that it calls for a joint defense communication . 10 :26:33 12 1 indicated certain inventions that had not been 10:21 :37 1 2 MR. BULCHIS : Counsel is correct. There was 10 :26 :37 13 invented at Synopsys by ... 10 :21 :40 13 a joint defense agreement at the time those slides were 10 :26 :38 14 Q. Was this provided verbally or was this 10 :21 :43 14 requested . 10 :26 :4 1 15 provided in writing? 10 :21 :47 15 MR. EDELMAN : I'm asking who requested it, 10 :26 :46 16 A. Verbally, 10 :21 :48 16 not the content of communication yet. 10:26 :48 17 Q. Was this the first time that you had informed 10 :21 :50 17 MR . BULCHIS : You can answer that . 10:26 :5 1 18 any representative of Magma of which inventions you 10:21 :55 18 A. I'm not really sure who requested that . 10 :26:5 2 19 believed were conceived at Synopsys? 10 :21 :58 19 Q. Did you have an understanding as to why the 10 :26 :54 20 A. I believe we discussed this earlier with -- 10 :22 :02 2 0 slides were being requested? 10 :26:5 7 21 when O'Melveny was representing me . 10 :22 :12 21 MR . BULCHIS : Again, to the extent that 10 :26 :59 22 Q . You believe that subject was discussed in 10 :22 :18 2 2 involves disclosure of communication between the 10 :27 :00 23 2004? 10 :22 :21 23 attorney and you, you should not answer that question . 10 :27 :02 24 A. Yes . .. 10:22 :22 24 MR . EDELMAN : I am merely asking for the 10 :27 :07 25 Q. Did the information you provided in these 10:22 :22 25 witness's understanding . 10:27 :08

276 278 L

14 (Pages 275 to 278)

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad 0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 MR . BULCHIS : Well, if his understanding was 10 :27 :09 1 content of the document . That's not what I'm asking . 10:29 :36 2 obtained through the attorney that's the same thing, so 10 :27:11 2 He's perfectly capable of answering that question . 10:29 :38 3 1 would instruct the witness not to answer . If you have 10 :27 :13 3 MR . BULCHIS : Isn't that the basis of his 10 :29 :40 4 an understanding obtained through an attorney not 10 :27 :15 4 obligation? 10 :29:42 5 involved in the joint defense agreement, you may answer 10 :27 :18 5 MR . EDELMAN: No . 10:29 :43 6 that question, 10 :27:20 6 MR . BULCHIS : The invention employment 10 :29 :44 7 A. Its hard to separate communication when it's 10 :27:24 7 agreement? 10 :29 :45 8 generally through my attorney, so I'm not sure that I 10 :27 :37 8 MR. EDELMAN : I would object to speaking 10 :29 :46 9 had an understanding beyond that . 10 :27 :46 9 objections. 10 :29 :47 10 Q. Well, is it your understanding currently that 10 :27 :47 10 Q. Can you answer the question, please, Dr, van 10 :29:4 8 11 the reason Magma wanted to find the slides was because 10 :27 :50 11 Ginneken? 10 :29 :49 12 it was trying to find ways to invalidate the '446 or 10 :27 :53 12 A. May I see the document? 10:29:5 0 13 '438 patents? 10 :27:57 13 Q . I don't have a copy of the document in front 10 :29 :57 14 MR . BULCHIS : Same objection, same 10 :27 :58 14 of me . If you want to look it -- I don't think the 10 :29 :58 15 instruction . To the extent that involves communications 10 :28 :00 15 answer requires you to look at the document . 10 :30:0 2 16 you received from your attorneys, you should not answer 10 :28 :03 16 MR . EDELMAN : Can you read back the question . 10:30:0 4 17 that question . To the extent you have an understanding 10 :28 :06 17 (Record read as requested .) 10 :30:17 18 based on other information such as your own knowledge, 10 :28 :09 18 MR. BULCHIS : To the extent that you can 10 :30 :17 19 you may answer that question . 10:28 :12 19 clearly remember what is in that document, you may 10 :30 :1 9 20 A. Okay. I would say yes. 10 :28:15 20 answer the question . 10:30 :20 21 Q . And so do you believe that finding the slides 10:28 :17 21 A. I did not understand that those applications 10 :30:2 6 22 provided Magma with information that it might be able to 10 :28 :21 22 included not recovering such public documents . 10:30 :3 0 23 use to invalidate the patents? 10:28 :23 23 Q . Do you believe that taking steps to find 10 :30 :38 24 A. Yes. 10:28 :26 24 prior art that could be used to invalidate inventions 10 :30 :42 25 Q. Do you understand, Mr . van Ginneken, that you 10 :28 :26 25 that was assigned to Synopsys is consistent with your 10 :30 :4 6 279 281

1 have an obligation to Synopsys to take steps to enforce 10 :28 :29 1 contractual obligations to Synopsys? 10:30 :4 9 2 the validity of the Inventions that you've assigned to 10 :28 :34 2 A. I did not understand that it was 10 :30 :5 2 3 Synopsys? 10 :28 :38 3 inconsistent. 10:30 :54 4 MR . BULCHIS : Again, same objection, same 10 :28 :39 4 Q . Now, I'm going to refer back to the letter 10 :30 :54 5 Instruction . To the extent you have an understanding 10 :28 :41 5 marked as Exhibit No . 30. And the second -- well, 10 :31 :03 6 not based on communications from counsel, you may answer 10 :28:43 6 staying on the first paragraph . Other than finding the 10 :31 :09 7 the question . 10:28:46 7 slides and meeting these three times with O'Melveny 10 :31 :15 8 A. Inventions assigned to Synopsys? 10 :28 :47 8 attorneys after the declaration was signed, was there 10 :31 :19 9 Q. Yes . 10 :28 :54 9 any other activities that you did to assist Magma? 10:31 :2 3 10 A. This patent is not assigned to Synopsys . 10 :28 :54 10 A. No. 10:31 :29 11 Q . I'm talking about Inventions . 10:28 :57 11 Q. Have you provided any declarations to Magma? 10 :31 :29 12 A. No, I don't have that understanding . 10:29:00 12 A . No . 10:31 :33 13 Q . Do you have any understanding as to the 10:29:02 13 Q. In the second paragraph there's a reference 10 :31 :33 14 obligations that you had to Synopsys pursuant to your 10 :29:03 14 to reimbursement, do you see that? 10 :31 :3 8 15 employment agreement or your inventions agreement with 10 :29 :07 15 A. Yes. 10:31 :4 1 16 Synopsys to uphold or take steps to uphold the validity 10 :29 :09 16 Q . After February 4th, 2005 when this letter was 10 :31 :4 1 17 of inventions assigned to Synopsys? 10 :29 :13 17 signed, has Magma reimbursed you for any expenses? 10 :31 :45 18 A. I have some understanding of that, yes . 10 :29 :16 18 A. No. 10 :31 :47 19 Q. What obligation do you have? 10 :29 :18 19 Q. In the next paragraph contains a release, 10 :31 :48 20 A. Could I -- 10 :29 :20 20 correct? 10:31 :5 2 21 MR . BULCHIS : Counsel, I would object to 10 :29 :26 21 A. Yes. 10:31 :5 5 22 asking this question about this document without 10 :29 :28 22 Q. Do you see in subparagraph 4, there's a 10 :31 :5 5 23 providing him the document. Its not a memory test, is 10:29 :30 23 reference to conduct that constitutes a crime, do you 10:32 :0 4 24 it? 10 :29 :34 24 see that? 10 :32 :07 25 MR . EDELMAN : This has nothing to do with the 10 :29 :34 25 A. Yes. 10:32 :10

280 28 2

15 (Pages 279 to 282 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 I Q . Was it your concern at the time this release 10 :32 :11 1 MR . EDELMAN : Doesn't excuse the witness from 10:34 :32 2 was signed about the possibility of criminal violation 10:32 :17 2 not producing documents responsive to the subpoena . And 10 :34 :34 3 relating to your activities? 10 :32 :22 3 please stop testifying . I've asked the witness a 10 :34 :36 4 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, vague and ambiguous . 10:32 :23 4 question . 10:34 :38 5 As to what activities? 10 :32 :24 5 MR . BULCHIS : I understand that, but the 10 :34:3 9 6 A . It was not my concern . 10 :32 :26 6 point is this is not a deposition for Synopsys . 10 :34 :4 1 7 Q. Well, did you suggest this paragraph be put 10 :32 :28 7 MR . EDELMAN : Has nothing to do with the 10 :34 :44 8 In or did Magma? 10 :32 :31 8 question . Let me ask it again . 10 :34 :4 5 9 A . Magma did . 10 :32 :34 9 Q . You understand that there was subpoena served 10 :34 :48 10 MR. BULCHIS : I would object as well . I 10 :32:40 10 by Synopsys last week, correct? 10 :34 :51 .11 don't think there's any foundation . 10 :32 :42 11 A. Well, I just - no. My understanding, I did 10 :34 :55 12 Q. It was Magma, that was your testimony? 10 :32 :45 12 not understand that until today . 10 :35:0 2 13 A. Yes. 10 :32 :47 13 Q . Until today . Were you ever provided a copy 10:35 :0 3 14 Q . . Are you currently concerned about any 10 :32 :47 14 of the subpoena that Synopsys served last week? 10 :35 :05 15 criminal implications of the information you testified 10 :32 :49 15 A. No . 10 :35 :07 16 to in your declaration? 10 :32 :52 16 Q. Are you aware that Synopsys asked for 10 :35:0 7 P. 17 A . Concerned, yes, although I have no idea how 10 :32 :56 17 documents in that subpoena? 10 :35 :1 1 18 this would be able to come about . 10 :33 :03 18 A. No. 10 :35 :1 2 19 Q. Before signing your declaration did you 10 :33 :05 19 Q . Did you ever make any effort to collect any 10 :35 :12 20 consult with any criminal attorney? 10 :33:12 20 documents requested by Synopsys in that subpoena? 10 :35 :16 21 A . No, I did not, 10 :33 :16 21 A. No. 10 :35:1 8 22 Q . Did you consult with any attorney about 10 :33 :16 22 Q . Were you copied on any communications that 10 :35 :1 8 23 potential criminal implications? 10 :33 :18 23 your lawyer had with Magma concerning the negotiation of 10 :35:3 3 24 A . No . 10 :33 :21 24 the letter agreement marked as Exhibit 2? 10 :35 :3 6 25 Q. I believe you testified that there were 10 :33 :22 25 A. Possibly, but I don't remember. 10:35:44 283 285

1 drafts of this letter agreement that were exchanged 10:33 :39 1 Q. Have you conducted a search to find those 10 :35 :4 8 2 between your counsel and Magma ; is that correct? 10 :33 :42 2 documents? 10:35 :50 3 A. Between my counsel and Magma? 10:33:45 3 A . No. 10 :35 :51 4 Q . Yes. 10 :33 :49 4 MR. OBSTLER: Can we go off the record for 10 :35 :5 7 5 A. I believe that's true . 10:33 :49 5 one second? 10 :35 :5 8 6 Q . Do you have possession of any of those 10:33 :50 6 MR . EDELMAN : Yeah. 10:35 :59 7 drafts? 10 :33 :52 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 10:36:0 1 8 A. I'm not sure about that. 10 :33 :55 8 time now is approximately 10:35 a .m, 10:36 :03 9 Q . Have you conducted a search to find out if 10 :33 :58 9 (Recess .) 10 :36 :1 9 10 you have possession of any of those drafts? 10 :34 :02 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 10 :36 :20 J 11 A . No. 10:34 :03 11 The time now is approximately 10 :36 a .m . 10:36 :2 4 12 Q. Are you aware that Synopsys served a subpoena 10 :34 :03 12 MR . OBSTLER: I just want to state for the 10 :36 :30 13 last week for your testimony here today? 10 :34:07 13 record that Magma filed objections to the subpoena that 10 :36 :3 1 14 A . Yes. 10 :34:11 14 Mr. Edelman is referring to, and among those objections, 10 :36:33 15 Q. And were you aware that there were document 10 :34 :12 15 which we still stand by, that many of the things he 10 :36 :37 16 requests attached to that subpoena? 10 :34 :15 16 sought there were, including the things he's now 10 :36 :4 1 17 MR . BULCHIS : Excuse me, counsel . This is 10 :34 :16 17 questioning the witness about, were subject to the joint 10 :36:43 18 not a subpoena deposition, is it? This is a Magma 10 :34 :17 18 defense privilege . 10 :36 :45 19 deposition . 10 :34 :20 19 Q. Are you aware if any privilege log was 10 :36:4 7 20 MR . EDELMAN : I subpoenaed the documents, 10 :34 :21 20 provided by you or your counsel in response to the 10 :36 :49 21 didn't I? 10 :34 :23 21 subpoena served by Synopsys? 10 :36 :52 22 MR . BULCHIS: That was for a Synopsys 10:34 :23 22 A. Subpoena of last week? 10 :36 :5 3 23 deposition. You've just informed me that this is not a 10 :34 :25 23 Q. Yes. 10:36 :55 24 Synopsys deposition . This is a Magma deposition, You 10 :34 :28 24 A. No. 10:36 :5 5 25 can't have it both ways . 10 :34 :31 25 Q . Was your concern when you signed the letter 10:36 :56 284 286

16 (Pages 283 to 286) EASTWOOD- STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 agreement a concern relating to claims that Magma may 10 :37 :18 1 known . 10 :39 :5 0 2 assert against you with respect to the inventions in the 10 :37 :21 2 Q. And if you thought your supervisor at Magma 10 :39:5 0 3 '446 and '438 patents? 10:37:23 3 may have known, does that indicate to you that that 1 0r39:S2 4 A. Yes. 10 :37 :26 4 supervisor also had an obligation to Magma -- 10 :39 :56 5 Q . Other than your activities with respect to 10 :37 :30 5 MR . OBSTLER: Same objection . 10 :40 .00 6 those inventions, was there any other concerns you had 10 :37 :33 6 Q . -- that was violated by his continuing to 10 :40 :0 1 7 about potential claims by Magma when you signed the 10 :37:36 7 work on the inventions? 10 :40 :05 8 release and agreement? 10 :37 :39 8 MR . OBSTLER: I'm going to object to that 10 :40 :08 9 A. That requires me to speculate about claims 10 :37 :42 9 question . 10 :40 :10 10 they could possibly bring . You want me to do that? 10 :37:46 10 A. He did not work on the invention, but he 10 :40 :1 0 11 Q. Did you have in your mind at the time any 10 :37 :51 11 allowed me to work on the inventions . 10:40 :13 12 possible claims that could be brought by Magma against 10 :37 :53 12 MR. OBSTLER: Wait a second . You have to 10 :40 :1 5 13 you? 10:37 :56 13 just let me get my objections in so were not speaking 10 :40 :1 6 14 A. I didn't have that clear in my mind what 10 :37 :57 14 over each other. Thanks. 10:40 :19 15 Magma might possibly do beyond that, 10 :38 :02 15 Q . Other than the claims asserted by you against 10 :40 :2 1 16 Q. Did you have any more fuzzy understanding of 10 :38 :06 16 Synopsys, are you aware of any other activity that you 10 :40 :2 7 17 possible claims that Magma may assert? 10 :38:13 17 have engaged in in violation of your obligation to 10 :40 :3 2 18 A. I certainly was, you know, had a fuzzy 10 :38 :15 18 Synopsys? 10 :40 :3 6 19 uncomfortability with potential for additional claims, 10 :38:17 19 MR . OBSTLER: Objection . I don't think he's 10 :40 :37 20 yes . 10 :38 :21 20 asserted any claims against Synopsys. 10 :40 :39 21 Q . Did you think that if Magma were to bring 10 :38 :21 21 MR . EDELMAN : That's not the question I 10 :40 :4 1 22 claims against you that those claims would have been 10 :38 :29 22 asked. Can you read it back? 10:40 :43 23 appropriate in light of what Magma knew concerning your 10 :38 :31 23 A. No. 10 :40 :4 5 24 activities? 10:38 :36 24 Q. Yesterday you testified concerning some 10 :40:45 25 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . The term 10 :38:38 25 issues relating to the conception of the fixed timing 10 :41 :07 287 289

1 "appropriate" is vague and ambiguous . 10 :38 :40 1 invention at Synopsys. Do you recall that? 10:41 :10 2 A . I thought Magma could make claims, yeah . 10 :38 :42 2 A. Some what relating? 10:41 :12 3 MR. OBSTLER: And he's not established a 10 :38 :45 3 Q. Testimony concerning the conception of the 10 :41 :1 4 4 foundation as to what this witness knew or didn't know. 10 :38 :47 4 fixed timing inventions . 10:41 :16 5 A. Could you repeat the question? 10 :38:51 5 A. Yes. 10:41 :1 8 6 Q. Let me ask it a different way . Were you 10 :38 :53 6 Q. And you testified that one of the impetuses 10 :41 :1 8 7 concerned that Magma was going to try to make you the 10 :38 :55 7 for conception of these ideas was the Grodstein and 10 :41 :23 8 fall guy for the claims by Synopsys? 10 :38:58 8 Lehman papers? 10 :41 :26 9 MR . OBSTLER: Objection . Object to the term 10 :39 :00 9 A. Yes. 10:41 :2 7 10 "fall guy ." It's vague and ambiguous, Its also 10 :39 :02 10 Q . And you first saw those papers in 1995, 10 :41 :2 7 11 misleading . 10:39 :05 11 correct? 10 :41 :3 1 12 A. Yes. 10 :39 :05 12 A. Yes. 10 :41 :3 2 13 Q. Did you think it would have been fair for 10 :39 :06 13 Q . When was it in 1995 that you first saw the 10 :41 :3 3 14 Magma to have made you the fall guy? 10:39 :08 14 Grodstein and Lehman papers? 10 :41 :38 15 MR . OBSTLER: Same objection. 10 :39 :11 15 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . It misstates his 10 :41 :4 0 16 A. Maybe, yes. 10:39:13 16 testimony. I don't think he saw Lehman in '95 . 10 :41 :42 17 Q . Well, did you think anyone else at Magma bore 10 :39 :14 17 A . Well, I attended the conference and I 10 :41 :47 18 any responsibility for what it did? 10:39:17 18 attended the presentations for those papers, and I 10 :41:50 19 A. No, 10 :39 :20 19 looked at the papers after the conference, 10 :41 :55 20 Q . You don't believe Magma should have known 10 :39 :21 20 Q . And during 1995 did you give some thought to 10 :41 :57 21 anything about the activities stated in your declaration 10 :39 :31 21 how the concept in those papers might be adopted for a 10 :42 :04 22 pertaining to these inventions? 10 :39 :34 22 logic synthesis product? 10 :42 :07 { 23 MR. OBSTLER: Objection, asked and answered 10 :39 :35 23 A. During 1995? 10 :42 :1 1 24 A . I testified yesterday to what my supervisor 10 :39:40 24 Q, Uh-huh . 10:42 :15 : 25 may have known . So that's a basis that they might have 10 :39 :46 25 A . I'm not sure when that thought exactly 10 :42 :1 7 288 290 1i

17 (Pages 287 to 290) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 occurred, but '95, late '95 or early '96 . 10 :42:21 1 Q. Dr . van Ginneken, I believe yesterday you 10 :57:5 4 2 Q. Do you have an understanding of when the 10 :42:27 2 testified that you received the Sutherland paper from 10 :57.56 3 development agreement between Synopsys and IBM was 10 :42 :30 3 Mr . Kudva? 10 :57 :59 4 signed? 10 :42 ;33 4 A. That's correct. 10:58 :0 1 5 A. Not exactly . 10 :42 :36 5 Q . When you received the Sutherland from Mr . 10 :58 :0 1 6 Q. Did you give thought to the use of constant 10 :42 :36 6 Kudva did you review the paper? 10 :58 :04 7 delay in a logic synthesis product before the signature 10 :42:41 7 A. Yes . 10:58 :0 7 8 of the agreement between Synopsys and IBM? 10 :42 :44 8 Q . When you reviewed the paper did you have any 10 :58 :08 9 A. I don't know when that signature was so 1 10 :42:47 9 insights after reviewing the paper? 10 :58:1 2 10 cannot answer that question . 10:42 :50 10 A. Well, over time, yes. 10 :58 :1 6 11 Q. Do you recall that there were internal 10 :42 :51 11 Q. And what were your insights in reviewing the 10:58 :18 12 meetings at Synopsys to discuss constant delay at which 10 :42 :54 12 paper? 10 :58 :2 0 13 no one from IBM attended? 10 :42 :56 13 A. I think I realized how we can determine how 10 :58 :2 1 14 A. I recall there was one -- there were meetings 10 :42 :58 14 he could use gain in the process of constant delay 10 :58 :35 15 where constant delay was discussed, yes . 10 :43 :05 15 synthesis . 10 :58 :4 3 16 Q. How many different meetings? 10:43 :07 16 Q . And what did you realize about how you could 10 :58:5 2 17 A. I remember one group meeting . I remember 10 :43:08 17 use gain? 10:58 :53 18 some, you know, white board discussions . 10 :43 :13 18 A. Gain can be used several ways . Can be used 10 :58 :54 19 Q. And during the time those meetings were held, 10 :43 :15 19 in the calculation of areas. Plays a role -- its 10 :58 :57 20 had Synopsys entered into an agreement with IBM at that 10 :43 :18 20 affected by stretching and compressing . A gain-based 10 :59:00 21 point? 10 :43 :20 21 analysis can be used to find the initial delay in 10:59 :05 22 A. I don't know . 10:43 :21 22 characterizing library. 10 :59 :08 23 Q. Is it possible that Synopsys had not entered 10 :43 :21 23 Q. Did you realize after reviewing the 10 :59 :1 4 24 into an agreement with IBM at the time Synopsys had 10 :43:24 24 Sutherland paper that you could associate a gain value 10 :59 :15 25 internal meetings on constant delay? 10 :43 :28 25 of the cells for which you were going to calculate the 10 :59:19 291 293

1 MR . OBSTLER: Objection . The witness just 10 :43:30 1 initial intended delay? 10:59 :2 2 2 answered he didn't know . 10:43 :31 2 A. I think those two things are disconnected, 10 :59 :24 3 A. If you can tell me what the date was that the 10 :43 :32 3 but yes . 10 :59:2 7 4 agreement was signed, I can answer the questions better, 10 :43:35 4 Q . Did you realize when you reviewed the 10 ;59 :28 5 Q. As you sit here today, do you know one way or 10 :43:37 5 Sutherland paper or did it occur to you that you could 10 :59 :3 1 6 the other whether or not the IBM agreement was signed as 10 :43:40 6 compute the initial intended delay based on the gain 10 :59:34 7 of the time Synopsys had internal meetings on constant 10 :43 :43 7 value? 10:59 :3 6 8 delay? 10 :43:46 8 A . Initial intended delay is not really based on 10 :59 :4 0 9 A. I don't know. 10:43 :47 9 the gain value. Its not like you determine the gain 10 :59 :43 10 Q . What was discussed about constant delay In 10 :43 :47 10 value first and then the initial intended delay, but the 10 :59 :47 11 these Internal meetings at Synopsys? 10 :43 :58 11 calculation of the initial intended delay is based on 10 :59 :52 12 MR. OBSTLER: Objection, vague as to time . 10 ;44:01 12 the argument that uses gain . 10 :59:56 13 A. I don't have that clear of a recollection, 10 :44:04 13 Q . And did you realize that from reading the 10 :59 :58 14 but it was proposed as -- you know, I pointed out the 10:44 :08 14 Sutherland paper? 11 :00 :0 1 15 paper Grodsteln and Lehman paper, and we discussed, you 10 :44 :15 15 A. Yes. 11 :00 :0 2 16 know, merits of the mapping algorithm . We discussed 10 :44:19 16 Q . Now, when Mr . Kudva sent you the Sutherland 11 :00 :02 17 merits of using this logic synthesis . 10:44 :24 17 paper, did he send it to you with a memo analyzing the 11 :00 :10 18 MR . BULCHIS : Would this be a good time to 10 :44 :59 18 relevance of that paper? 11 :00:1 4 19 take a break? 10 :45 :01 19 A. He just faxed it to me. 11:00 :1 5 20 MR . EDELMAN : Sure . 10 :45 :02 20 Q. Did he send it to you with any comment? 11 :00 :17 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 10 :45 :03 21 A . We spoke about it on the phone, but there 11 :00 :20 22 time now is approximately 10 :44 a.m . 10:45 :05 22 were no comments included in the fax. 11 :00:2 4 23 (Recess.) 10 :57 :27 23 Q. When he gave you the Kudva paper -- I'm 11 :00 :2 5 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 10:57:48 24 sorry, when Mr . Kudva gave you the Sutherland paper, did 11 :00 :30 25 The time now is approximately 10:57 a .m. 10 :57 :50 25 he explain to you in any way at that time what he 11 :00 :34 292 294 18 (Pages 291 to 294) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 ; 1 thought the relevance of that paper was? 11 :00 :36 I MR . OBSTLER: Object, vague as to time . 11 :03 :25 2 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered . 11:00 :38 2 A. I can't say that for sure . I don't recall 11 :03 :2 8 3 A. We had discussions about the paper . I don't 11 :00:41 3 what I was thinking at the time . 11:03 :3 3 4 recall to what extent that he pointed out the relevance. 11 :00:47 4 Q . You know at some point you began drafting a 11 :03 :33 5 Clearly he saw the relevance enough to bring up the 11 :00 :53 5 patent application for constant delay inventions you had 11 :03 :50 6 topic . 11 :00 :56 6 conceived at Synopsys, correct? 11 :03 :54 7 MR . BULCHIS : Can he finish his answer, 11 :00:58 7 A. Correct. 11 :03 :56 8 please . 11 :01 :00 8 Q . And there were two different drafts that were 11 :03 :56 9 Q . I'm sorry . Can you identify anything 11 :01 :0 1 9 created, correct? 11 :03 :59 10 specific that Mr. Kudva contributed to the ideas of 11 :01 :03 10 A. There may have been more than two . 11 :03 :59 11 gain-based synthesis other than sending the Sutherland 11 :01 :07 11 Q. And was gain-based synthesis included within 11 :04 :01 12 paper? 11 :01 :1 1 12 those drafts? 11 :04 :0 7 13 A. Something specific? 11 :01 :14 13 A. The drafts don't talk extensively about 11 :04 :08 14 Q. Yes. 11 :01 :1 6 14 gain-based synthesis, but they do reference gain-based 11 :04 :12 15 A . That would be difficult . I don't recall any 11 :01 :17 15 matters here and there, yes. 11 :04 :16 16 discussions with Mr . Kudva in detail . Its possible 11 :01 :23 16 Q . And at the time that you drafted those 11 :04 :17 17 that he pointed out some things specifically, but I 11 :01 :27 17 applications or participated in the drafting of those 11 :04 :20 18 don't recall . 11 :01 :3 0 18 applications, was it your understanding that you were 11 :04 :23 19 Q. Is it fair to state that the main insights in 11 :01 :30 19 the inventor of the gain-based approaches to the extent 11 :04 :26 20 terms of how to connect the gain-based approach in 11 :01 :35 20 they were disclosed in those applications? 11 :04 :2 9 21 Sutherland with your constant delay inventions was 11 :01 :39 21 A. Yes . 11 :04 :31 22 conceived by you? 11 :01 :43 22 MR. EDELMAN : I want to remark Exhibit No . 11 :04 :37 23 A. I think that's true . 11 :01 :4 4 23 23 . 11:04 :39 24 Q. I believe you testified yesterday that you 11 :01 :45 24 MR . BULCHIS : 23? 11 :04 :3 9 25 received the Sutherland paper in March of 1996; is that 11 :01 :59 25 Q. I believe you testified yesterday that the 11 :05 :21 295 297

1 correct? 11 :02 :03 1 document marked as Exhibit No. 23 was a document that 11 :05 :25 2 A. Yes . 11 :02 :03 2 you created in 1996 at Synopsys, correct? 11 :05 :2 8 3 Q . And It was in early March, correct? 11 :02 :03 3 A . Yes . 11 :05 :33 4 A . Well, no. We had a meeting on March 5th . 11 :02 :06 4 Q . And when you filled out this document, was it 11 :05 :34 5 Then there was some time went by, perhaps a couple days, 11 :02 :12 5 your intention to be truthful? 11 :05 :3 6 6 a week, before I had my first conversation with Mr . 11 :02 :15 6 A . Yes. 11 :05 :38 7 Kudva . Then probably a couple more days, maybe another 11 :02 :17 7 Q . Do you see where it says conception/IMPL 11 :05 :39 8 week went by before i got the paper. So It could have 11 :02 :21 8 dates? 11 :05 :49 9 been past the middle of March by then . 11 :02 :26 9 A . Where Is that? Oh, yes. 11 :05 :53 10 Q. As of the end of March of 1996, had you 11 :02:28 10 Q . Is it your understanding that IMPL stoop for 11 :05 :56 11 received the Sutherland paper? 11 :02 :3 1 11 implementation? 11 :06 :0 1 12 A, I believe so, yes . 11 :02 :32 12 A. No. 11 :06 :02 13 Q . And as of the end of March of 1996, had you 11 :02 :33 13 Q . What did IMPL stand for In your 11 :06 :02 14 started giving thought to how the gain-based approach in 11 :02:36 14 understanding? 11 :06 :06 15 the Sutherland paper would fit within your constant 11 :02:39 15 A . I have no idea what IMPL meant . 11 :06 :07 16 delay inventions? 11 :02 :42 16 Q . Do you see next to that it states, "1 11 :06 :09 17 A, Yes. 11 :02 :43 17 conceived the idea on February 29th"? 11 :06 :16 18 Q. As of April of 1996, did you consider the 11 :02 :43 18 A . Uh-huh . 11 :06 :1 9 19 gain-based approach to be a part of the constant delay 11 :02 :54 19 Q. Do you have an understanding as to whether 11 :06:20 20 Inventions that you were going to work on? 11 :02 :57 20 there was an agreement between IBM and Synopsys that was 11 :06 :23 21 A. Did 1 believe that? Yes . 11:03 :0 2 21 signed on February 29th of 1996? 11 :06 :2 6 22 Q. And as of April of 1996 when you made 11 :03 :05 22 A. No . I had no idea that it was signed on that 11 :06 :30 23 reference to constant delay synthesis at Synopsys, did 11 :03 :15 23 date . 11 :06 :3 2 24 you also understand that reference to include the idea 11 :03 :18 24 Q. Do you know whether or not, as you sit here 11 :06 :33 25 of gain-based approach to constant delay? 11 :03 :21 25 today, that IBM and Synopsys had reached an agreement as 11 :06 :37 296 298

19 (Pages 295 to 298) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 of February 29th, 1996? 11 :06:40 1 Q. Is that a reference to the "Driving on the 11 :09 :3 7 2 A. Probably not. 11:06:44 2 Left-hand Side" presentation? 11 :0928 3 Q. As of -- so this was filled out on April 11 :06 :45 3 A. Yes. 11 :09 :39 2 4 25th, 1996, correct? 11 :06 :57 4 Q. And you ultimately created that presentation 11 :09 :40 5 A. Yeah, probably. I mean, that's the date 11 :07 :01 5 to provide at ICCAD, correct? 11 :09 :43 6 stamp on it. This is an electronic form, and I don't 11 :07 :06 6 A. I never created the presentation . I only 11 :09:4 6 7 remember exactly how I filled out the text or how it was 11 :07 :11 7 created the paper . 11 :09 :48 8 entered into electronic form . It's possible that it was 11 :07 :14 8 Q. You're right, the paper . Did the paper that 11 :09 :48 9 copied and -- you know, the text was created earlier and 11 :07 :17 9 you created for ICCAD '96 include any discussion of 11 :09:5 1 10 arrived in whatever database this seems to be. 11 :07 :23 10 gain-based synthesis inventions? 11 :09 :5 5 11 Q. Well, do you have any information as you sit 11 :07 :26 11 A. Yes. 11 :09 :5 7 12 here today as to whether or not this date does not 11 :07:28 12 Q. Did you consider yourself to be the sole 11 :09:57 13 indicate the date you entered the text? 11 :07 :32 13 inventor of the inventions contained in the paper that 11 :10 :0 0 14 A. No. 11 :07 :37 14 you submitted to ICCAD in 1996? 11 :10 :0 3 15 Q. So as of April 25th 1996, you had already 11 :07 :38 15 MR, OBSTLER : Objection . Calls for a legal 11 :10 :05 16 received the Sutherland paper from Mr. Kudva, correct? 11 :07 :49 16 conclusion about his understanding of what the sole 11 :10 :08 17 A. Yes. 11 :07 :52 17 inventor is. 11:10 :1 1 18 Q. And as of April 25th, 1996 you had already 11 :07 :54 18 A. Yes. 11:10 :1 5 19 given some thought to how the gain-based approach in the 11 :07 :58 19 Q . Now, did you see it also makes a reference to 11 :10 :15 20 Sutherland paper would fit within your constant delay 11 :08:03 20 a joint venture? 11 :10 :25 21 inventions, correct? 11 :08 :06 21 A. Yes. 11 :10 :2 6 22 A. Yes. 11 :08 :07 22 Q. And you said yes next to that? 11 :10 :2 6 23 Q. Do you see further to the top it has a line 11 :08 :07 23 A. Yes. 11:10 :28 24 for additional inventors? 11 :08 :11 24 Q. I believe you testified yesterday that that 11 :10 :2 8 25 A. Yes. 11 :08:14 25 was a reference to the relationship between Synopsys and 11 :10 :3 1 299 301

1 Q. And you stated additional inventors, none, 11 :08 :14 1 IBM, correct? 11 :10 :35 2 correct? 11 :08 :17 2 A. Yes. 11:10 :3 6 3 A. Correct . 11 :08:18 3 Q. And I believe you testified yesterday that it 11 :10 :3 6 4 Q. Does that reflect your understanding that as 11 :08:18 4 was your understanding that any inventions you created 11 :10:4 0 5 of April 25th, 1996 the work that you had done relating 11 :08 :20 5 relating to the joint project would be jointly owned by 11 :10 :44 6 to constant delay was work that you were the sole 11 :08 :24 6 Synopsys and IBM even if there were no other 11 :10 :47 7 inventor for? 11 :08:29 7 co-inventors, correct? 11 :10 :50 8 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, I think your 11 :08:30 8 A. That was my understanding, yes . 11 :10:5 2 9 question is misleading and vague and ambiguous . The 11 :08 :31 9 Q. To arrive at that understanding, did you ever 11 :10 :54 10 idea that was invented is stated on the conception line 11 :08 :33 10 conduct a review of the joint development agreement to 11 :10 :56 11 in the document. 11 :08 :37 11 determine whether that was true? 11 :10 :58 12 MR . EDELMAN : I again object to speaking 11 :08 :38 12 A . No . I never saw the joint development 11 :11 :00 13 objections. Go ahead . 11 :08 :40 13 agreement. 11:11 :0 1 14 A. It was my understanding that I was the 11 :08 :42 14 Q. Do you in fact have any knowledge, as you sit 11 :11 :0 1 15 inventor, yes . 11 :08 :45 15 here today, as to what the joint development agreement 11 :11 :04 16 Q . And so to the extent there were gain-based 11 :08 :46 16 actually provides as to who owns inventions conceived 11 :11 :0 6 17 synthesis inventions relating to your review of the 11 :08 :49 17 under this project? 11 :11 :0 9 18 Sutherland paper, you thought you were the sole inventor 11 :08 :52 18 A. No. 11 :11 :1 0 19 of those inventions as of April 25th, 1996, correct? 11 :08 :55 19 Q. Are you aware as you sit here today as to 11 :11 :1 1 20 A. Correct. 11 :08 :59 20 whether the joint development agreement says that 11 :11 :1 7 21 Q . Do you see where it says future disclosure? 11 :09:05 21 intellectual property that pre-existed the agreement is 11 :11 :20 22 This is a few lines down . It says, "I'm planning to 11 :09:24 22 owned by the party that conceived of that invention? 11 :11 :2 3 23 give an oral presentation at the ICCAD in Santa Clara, 11 :09:30 23 A . No . I was not aware of that. 11 :11 :27 24 regarding this idea ." 11 :09 :35 24 Q. Are you aware as you sit here today of 11 :11:2 9 25 A. Yes. 11 :09 :37 25 whether or not the joint development agreement provides 11 :11 :33 300 302

20 (Pages 299 to 302) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92adO-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 that a party that solely conceives of an invention 11 :11 :36 1' referring to that list of inventions that I just 11 :14 :35 2 retains sole ownership of that invention even if it's 11 :11 :39 2 mentioned," which is the preceding paragraph . 11:14 :37 3 disclosed to the other party? 11 :11 :42 3 Q. Well, Dr . van Ginneken, when you stated under 11 :14 :'1 0 4 A. No . 11:11 :45 4 oath and under penalty of perjury that all the 11 :14:4 2 5 MR . EDELMAN : I'd like to re-introduce 11 :12 :05 5 inventions contained in the application were solely 11 :14 :4 5 6 Exhibit 25 . For the record, this is the draft patent 11 :12 :07 6 conceived by me at Synopsys, did you believe that to be 11 :14 :47 7 application called "System and Method for Constant Delay 11 :12 :17 7 true? 11:14 :5 0 8 Synthesis ." 11 :12:19 8 A. Yes . 11 :14 :5 1 9 Q. I believe in your declaration you testified 11 :12 :40 9 Q. And you're saying now that you're not sure 11 :14 :52 10 that all the inventions contained in this exhibit were 11 :12 :54 10 that's true? 11 :14 :5 4 11 solely conceived by you ; is that correct? 11 :12 :56 11 MR . BULCHIS: Counsel, I object to this as 11 :14 :55 12 A. Yes. 11 :12 :58 12 misleading . You've read him half of the paragraph and 11 :14 :5 6 13 Q . Do you still believe that to be correct? 11 :12 :58 13 you won't show him the rest of the paragraph, and you're 11 :14 :59 14 A. Yes. 11 :13:02 14 asking him to testify on that basis . Show him the whole 11 :15 :0 1 15 Q. If you can turn to -- 11 :13 :06 15 paragraph . 11:15 :04 16 A. Well, let me qualify that. I'm not sure 11 :13 :13 16 MR . OBSTLER : I also object to asked and 11 :15 :05 17 about that. 11:13 :15 17 answered because he said as he currently sits here today 11 :15 :0 6 18 Q. You're not sure about that? 11 :13 :16 18 your statement is not accurate. 11 :15 :1 1 19 A. Yeah . 11 :13 :17 19 MR, BULCHIS : You're trying to trick the 11 :15 :1 3 20 Q . Well, let's go back to your declaration . 11 :13:18 20 witness by reading just a part of the -- 11 :15:1 4 21 A. No, it's not that 1'm not sure about what the 11 :13 :23 21 MR . EDELMAN : Excuse me. Please state your 11 :15 :1 7 22 declaration says . 11 :13 :26 22 objections for the record and I'll ask the next 11 :15 :1 8 23 Q. You're not sure whether your declaration is 11 :13 :28 23 question, okay . I appreciate you trying to coach the 11 :15 :20 24 accurate? 11:13 :29 24 witness but that's not appropriate . 11 :15 :2 3 25 A. No. 11:13 :30 25 MR . BULCHIS: I'm not trying -- 11 :15 :2 5 303 305 -':

1 Q . I'm sorry, I misunderstood you . What are you 11 :13 :31 1 Q. Dr . van Ginneken, could you please refer to 11 :15 :26 2 not sure about? 11 :13 :34 2 Exhibit No. 1, again, your declaration, and I'm 11 :15 :28 3 A. I think you asked if I'm still sure that I'm 11 :13 :35 3 referring to paragraph 22 . Do you see the second 11 :15 :3 5 4 the sole inventor . 11:13 :40 4 sentence in paragraph 22? 11 :15 :4 1 5 Q. Yes. 11 :13 :41 5 A. Yes. 11 :15 :42 6 A . I'm not sure of that currently. 11 :13 :42 6 Q . Please read into the context the full 11 :15 :43 7 Q. Okay . But your declaration states that you 11 :13 :45 7 paragraph . 11:15 :4 5 8 are the sole inventor? 11 :13 :47 8 A. You want me to read it? 11 :15 :47 9 A. Yes . 11 :13 :49 9 Q. Sure. Read paragraph 22 . 11 :15 :5 0 10 Q. Of all the inventions? 11 :13 :49 10 A. "One draft of the patent application 11 :15 :51 11 MR . BULCHIS : Could you identify what 11 :13 :50 11 (attached as Exhibit 5 hereto) was entitled 'System and 11 :15 :5 3 12 paragraph you're referring to? 11 :13 :51 12 Method of Constant Delay Synthesis,' and contained a 11 :15 :5 7 13 MR . EDELMAN : Sure . Paragraph 22 . 11 :13 :53 13 disclosure of my inventions for fixed timing, including 11 :16 :00 14 MR . OBSTLER: And we're reflecting -- let the 11 :14 :08 14 used of fixed timing in relation to logic synthesis and 11 :16:0 2 15 record reflect paragraph 22 of his declaration. 11 :14 :11 15 placement, equal slack sizing, area estimation, 11 :16:0 6 16 MR . EDELMAN : Paragraph 22 of his 11 :14 :13 16 buffering, bipartitioning, iterative placement, and net 11 :16 :09 17 declaration, right, that has been marked as Exhibit No . 11 :14 :15 17 weights. All of. the inventions contained in this 11 :16 :12 18 1. 11 :14 :17 18 application were solely conceived by me at Synopsys . 1 11 :16 :14 19 Q. States after mentioning the draft that has 11 :14 :18 19 never disclosed this draft patent application to the 11 :16 :1 8 20 been marked as Exhibit 25 that "All of the inventions 11 :14 :21 20 public, and I have no reason to believe that it was not 11 :16 :20 21 contained in this application were solely conceived by 11 :14 :25 21 maintain by Synopsys and proprietary and confidential ." 11 :16 :24 22 me at Synopsys." 11 :14 :28 22 Q. Is it your testimony that paragraph is true 11 :16:30 s 23 MR. BULCHIS : I object . 11 :14 :31 23 and correct? 11 :16 :32 24 MR . OBSTLER: Object to that question, 11 :14 :31 24 A. Yes. 11 :16 :33 25 misleading, and yesterday he testified, "Were you 11 :14 :34 25 - Q. Let me turn back to Exhibit No. 25. And I'd 11 :16 :3 3 304 306

21 (Pages 303 to 306) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 like to return to the list of claims contained in the 11 :16 :49 1 declaration going back to Exhibit 1 . I want you to -- 11:19 :55 2 document marked as Exhibit No . 25 . Would you agree that 11 :16 :54 2 you don't have to read it into the record, but I want 11 ;20:09 3 the invention in claim 1 constitutes an invention 11 :17:03 3 you to read the paragraph again, okay? 11 :20 :1 2 4 contained in the application marked as Exhibit No . 25? 11 :17 :09 4 A. "After the creation of this draft, work on 11:20 :1 5 5 A. Yes. 11 :17 :14 5 the application continued and eventually a subsequent 11 :20:18 6 Q. And so would you agree that you stated in 11 :17 :14 6 draft was created . This draft (attached as Exhibit 6 11 :20:21 7 your declaration that the invention contained in claim 1 11 :17 :18 7 hereto) was entitled 'Method for Achieving Timing 11 :20 :25 8 was solely conceived by you at Synopsys? 11 :17:20 8 Closure of Digital Networks and Method for Area 11 :20 :29 9 A. Yes. 11 :17 :27 9 Optimization of Digital Networks under Timing Closure . 11 :20 :32 10 Q . And is that true? 11 :17 :27 10 This draft more thoroughly disclosed the inventions I 11 :20:36 11 A. Yes. 11 :17 :30 11 conceived of while employed at Synopsys, and described 11 :20 :40 12 Q . Is that also true for claim 2? 11:17 :31 12 in detail the use of fixed timing in relation to network 11 :20:42 13 A . Let me -- 11 :17 :34 13 slack, library independent optimization, mapping for 11 :20 :46 14 MR . OBSTLER : Well, I'm going to -- 11 :17 :45 14 delay, post mapping optimization, pin swapping, boundary 11 :20 :50 15 A . Well, claim 2 is choice of constant delay, 11 :17 :54 15 moves, area estimation, net weights, buffering, 11 :20 :54 16 which is not listed in paragraph 22. 11 :17 :57 16 stretching, placement, partitioning and final or 11 :20 :58 17 Q . And in paragraph 22 it states All of the 11 :18:00 17 discrete sizing . All of the inventions contained in 11 :21 :0 1 18 inventions contained in this application ." Does that 11 :18 :03 18 this application were solely conceived by me at 11 :21 :04 19 say only the inventions contained in the sentence above? 11 :18 :07 19 Synopsys. I never disclosed this draft patent 11 :21 :06 20 MR . OBSTLER : Again, I'm going to object . 11:18 :08 20 application to the public, and I have no reason to 11 :21 :09 21 MR. EDELMAN : Excuse me, I'm not finished 11 :18 :10 21 believe that it was not maintained by Synopsys as 11 :21 :12 22 with my question, and I object to speaking objections . 11 :18 :11 22 proprietary and confidential." 11 :21 :16 23 State your objection and I"will ask the witness 11 :18 :14 23 Q . Did you believe when you signed the 11 :21 :18 24 questions . That is what you're limited to . 11 :18 :16 24 declaration that every statement in that paragraph was 11 :21 :19 25 Q . Dr . van Ginneken, does paragraph 22 of your 11 :18 :19 25 true and correct? 11 :21:21 307 309

1 declaration state that only the inventions stated in 11 :18 :24 1 A. Yes. 11 :21 :2 3 2 that paragraph were solely conceived by you or that all 11 :18 :28 2 Q . Do you still believe every statement in 11 :21:23 3 the inventions contained in the application were solely 11 :18 :31 3 paragraph 23 is true and correct? 11 :21 :26 4 conceived by you? 11 :18 :34 4 A. I'm not sure . 11:21 :30 5 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered, 11 :18 :36 5 Q. You're not sure if the statements in 11 :21 :34 6 misleading, and mischaracterizes the testimony. 11 :18 :37 6 paragraph 23 are true and correct? 11 :21 :38 7 A. I believe that sentence has to be read in 11 :18 :40 7 A. Right . 11 :21 :4 0 8 context. 11 :18 :43 8 Q. And which statement in paragraph 23 are you 11 :21 :40 9 Q . So is it your testimony that there are 11 :18 :44 9 not sure was true and correct? 11 :21 :4 3 10 inventions contained In the application that may not 11 :18 :46 10 A. Well, as I said, similar to the previous 11 :21 :44 11 have been solely conceived by you? 11 :18 :49 11 paragraph, you know, I believe that I created all the 11 :21 :55 12 A. I'm not completely familiar with the 11 :18:53 12 inventions . However, Prabhakar Kudva contributed by 11 :21 :59 13 standards for inventorship and whether, you know, 11 :18 :56 13 providing the paper . 11:22 :04 14 someone constitutes an inventor or not . I believe I 11 :19:02 14 Q. Other than providing a paper to you, did Mr . 11 :22 :04 15 invented the claim No . 2 . However, It should be clear 11 :19 :07 15 Kudva provide any other specific contributions to the 11 :22 :09 16 that Prabhakar Kudva contributed to that by providing 11 :19 :13 16 inventions contained in the draft referenced in 11 :22 :12 17 the paper which describes the method . 11:19 :17 17 paragraph 23? 11 :22 :15 18 Q . Other than providing the paper to you, can 11 :19 :21 18 MR . OBSTLER : Same objection that I had to 11 :22 :16 19 you identify anything else that Mr. Kudva did to 11 :19 :25 19 the earlier question. 11 :22 :17 20 contribute to any of the claims in the document marked 11 :19 :28 ! 20 A. None that I can point out. 11 :22:18 21 as Exhibit No. 25? 11 :19 :32 21 MR . EDELMAN : Why don't we take a break for a 11 :22 :56 22 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered . 11 :19 :35 22 couple of minutes . 11:22 :57 23 A . No, I cannot specifically point out anything 11 :19 :44 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record. The 11 :22 :58 24 else . 11 :19 :46 24 time now is approximately 11 :22 a .m . This is the end of 11 :23 :00 25 Q . Well, let me turn to paragraph 23 of your 11 :19:47 2 5 tape No . 1 in the deposition of Lukas van Ginneken . 11 :23 :04 308 310

22 (Pages 307 to 310) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 (Recess .) 11 :44 :47 1 A . Ever? 11 :48 :54 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 11:45 :13 2 Q . Yes. 11 :48 :55 3 The time now is approximately 11:45 a .m . and this is the 11 :45 :16 3 A . Yes. 11 :48 :56 4 beginning of tape No . 2 in the deposition of Lukas van 11 :45 :20 4 Q . When was that? 11 :48 :58 5 Ginneken . 11 :45 :26 5 A. Well, at one time Synopsys made me call Mr . 11 :49 :00 6 Q. Dr . van Ginneken, could you refer to Exhibit 11 :45 :30 6 Kudva to apologize for the events around the paper . 11:49 :08 7 No. 5, which is the '446 patent. I'd like to refer you 11 :45 :32 7 Q. I guess I wasn't being clear. Did you have 11 :49 :1 2 8 in particular to claims 49 through 54 . Is it fair to 11 :45 :55 8 any discussions with Mr . Kudva about this lawsuit? 11 :49 :14 9 characterize those claims as gain-based synthesis 11 :46 :05 9 A. No. 11 :49:18 10 inventions? 11 :46 :07 10 Q. When is the last time you talked to Mr . 11:49 :18 11 A. Yes, 11 :46 :08 11 Kudva? 11 :49:21 12 Q. I believe you testified yesterday that Mr . 11 :46 :09 12 A. Years ago . 11 :49:22 13 Kudva's contribution relating to these claims was in 11 :46 :16 13 Q . If you could take a look at Exhibit No . 6. 11 :49 :24 14 providing the Sutherland paper ; is that correct? 11 :46:21 14 Actually, while you're getting that out, a few questions 11 :50 :35 15 A. Yes, providing the paper, understanding that 11 :46 :25 15 I forgot to ask. Dr, van Ginneken, was the Sutherland 11 :50 :39 16 the paper provided these methods and that it was 11 :46 :28 16 paper the only paper that Mr . Kudva provided you during 11 :50 :43 17 connected to the idea of constant delay synthesis . 11 :46:37 17 your work with him on constant delay? 11 :50 :4 6 18 Q . Well, did Mr . Kudva convey to you when he 11 :46 :41 18 A. In terms of papers? 11 :50 :48 19 gave you the paper how it was related to constant delay 11 :46 :45 19 Q. Yes. 11 :50:49 20 synthesis or did he just fax it to you? 11 :46 :48 20 A. I believe so . 11 :50 :56 21 A. We had several discussions about it, but I 11 :46 :50 21 Q. He did not give you any other papers? 11 :50 :57 22 don't really recall that content of these discussions . 11 :46 :53 22 A. I don't believe so, no . 11 :50 :5 9 23 Q . Well, other than providing you with the 11 :46 :57 23 Q. Is that true during the time you worked on 11 :51 :01 24 Sutherland paper, can you identify any other - 11 :46 :59 24 constant delay with him? 11 :51 :0 3 25 contributions that Mr . Kudva made to claims 49 through 11 :47 :02 25 A. Yes, I think so . 11 :51 :04 311 31 3

1 54? 11 :47 :06 1 Q . Are you aware of any document authored in 11 :51 :05 2 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, misleading . He just 11 :47:07 2 1996 that would evidence what Mr . Kudva contributed to 11 :51 :12 3 stated the contributions . 11 :47 :09 3 gain-based synthesis? 11:51 :19 4 A. I cannot positively identify other 11 :47 :11 4 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, it's vague and 11 :51 :22 5 contributions . 11 :47 :14 5 ambiguous. I don't understand the question . 11:51 :24 6 Q. Yesterday you recall there was testimony 11 :47 :17 6 A . Well, I would think the best document for 11 :51 :2 7 7 concerning concerns by IBM about your publication of 11 :47 :37 7 that would be the white paper, the joint white paper . 11:51 :30 8 your constant delay paper . Do you recall that? 11 :47 :43 8 Q. And the portions of the white paper 11 :51 :34 9 A . Yes. 11 :47 :46 9 concerning gain-based synthesis, who wrote those 11 :51 :36 10 Q. Do you have any understanding as to why IBM 11 :47 :46 10 portions? 11 :51 :40 11 was concerned about that? 11:47 :49 11 A. I did . 11 :51 :4 0 12 A. I think there were two parts to the concern . 11 :47 :51 12 Q . Other than the white paper, can you think of 11 :51 :41 13 One, there was a concern of credit . Mr. Kudva felt that 11 :47:55 13 any other documentation? 11 :51 :58 14 he was entitled to be a co-author on the paper, and 11 :48 :01 14 A. There may be E-mails that you still have, but 11 :51:59 15 there was a concern of confidentiality. IBM did not 11 :48 :05 15 1 don't have any documentation to that extent. 11 :52 :05 16 want technology that they believed they had an interest 11 :48 :12 16 MR . OBSTLER : For the record, has Synopsys 11 :52 :1 9 17 in to be disclosed . 11 :48:18 17 produced those E-mails? 11 :52 :2 1 18 Q . Well, do you know whether IBM's concern was 11 :48 :19 18 MR. EDELMAN : We're going to have a 11 :52 :22 19 related to their view on ownership of inventions as 11 :48 :23 19 discussion about document production on the record? 11 :52 :24 20 opposed to their concern about ownership of technology 11 :48 :26 20 MR . OBSTLER : I just want to know, has 11 :52 :26 21 resulting from the inventions? 11 :48 :30 21 Synopsis produced the E-mails? 11 :52 :28 22 A. I don't know their concerns at that level of 11 :48 :33 22 MR . EDELMAN : I'm not answering questions 11 :52 :29 23 detail . 11 :48 :36 23 about document production on the record . 11 :52 :32 24 Q . Have you had any discussions with Mr. Kudva 11 :48:36 24 Q. Referring now to Exhibit 6, this was a 11 :52 :3 7 25 about this dispute between Magma and Synopsys? 11 :48 :51 2 5 declaration that you signed under oath and submitted to 11 :52 :44 312 314

23 (Pages 311 to 314) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 the Patent and Trademark Office? 11 :52 :50 1 Q. Did the Pillsbury attorneys ask you to 11 :55 :2 6 2 A. Yes. 11 :52:58 2 identify the appropriate inventors for this application? 11 :55:33 3 Q . When you signed this declaration, did you 11 :52 :58 3 A. Not that I recall . 11 :55 :37 4 believe it was true? 11 :53 :00 4 Q. Did you ever tell anyone at Pillsbury that 11 :55 :3 8 5 A. Yes, 11 :53 :00 5 you thought there might be an issue with respect to the 11 :55 :4 4 6 Q. Is this the only declaration that you signed 11 :53 :01 6 identification of the inventor? 11 :55 :4 5 7 pertaining to the inventions in the '446 and '438 11 :53 :08 7 A. No . 11 :55 :4 7 8 patents that was submitted to the Patent and Trademark 11 :53 :11 8 Q . Were others at Magma aware of the fact that 11 :55 :47 9 Office? 11 :53 :14 9 this patent was being prosecuted beginning in 1997? 11 :55 :53 10 A . To my knowledge . 11 :53:16 10 MR . OBSTLER: Objection, no foundation . 11 :55 :57 11 Q. Are you aware of whether Magma has applied 11 :53 :17 11 Calls for speculation. 11 :55:59 12 for patent protection in countries other than the United 11 :53 :20 12 A. Some people were aware of it . 11 :56:02 13 States relating to the inventions in the '446 or '438 11 :53 :25 13 Q. Who at Magma was aware of the fact that Magma 11 :56:04 14 patent? 11 :53 :30 14 was applying for patents relating to constant delay? 11 :56 :07 15 A. Oh, I believe they have done that, yes. 11 :53 :30 15 A. Well, I don't know exactly who knew what . 11 :56:1 3 16 Q . Are you the sole named inventor on those 11 :53 :33 16 Obviously, Rajeev Madhavem knew that there was a draft 11 :56 :1 6 17 applications as well? 11 :53:36 17 being made for patent application, and I think there was 11 :56 :20 18 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, lacks foundation . 11 :53 :37 18 some other people that knew about it, but the draft was 11 :56 :23 19 A. I think so . 11:53 :39 19 not circulated for review or anything like that . 11 :56:27 20 Q . When did you originally become aware that 11 :53 :41 20 Q. Did Patrick Groeneveld know in 1997? 11 :56:3 2 21 Magma was seeking patent protection outside the United 11 :53 :47 21 A . I believe he knew that there was a patent 11 :56:3 8 22 States for these inventions? 11 :53 :50 22 being drafted, but I don't think that he actually read 11 :56:40 23 A. I don't recall that exactly . I don't know . 11:53 :52 23 the application. 11:56 :45 24 That was in the years following, in the following years . 11 :54 :02 24 Q. Did you work with the Pillsbury prosecutors 11 :56 :46 25 Q. Did you sign any declaration relating to the 11 :54 :04 25 to review the specification and claims for the '446 and 11 :56 :52 315 317

1 prosecution of the foreign applications? 11 :54 :07 1 '438 patents? 11 :57 :00 2 A . I don't recall that, but I may have. 11 :54 :11 2 A . To review them, yes. 11 :57 :05 3 Q. Do you see in this declaration it states, "I 11 :54 :15 3 Q . You do you recall there was an original 11 :57 :06 4 hereby state that I have reviewed and understand the 11 :54 :19 4 application submitted in 1997 relating to the constant 11 :57:13 % 5 contents of the above-identified specification, 11 :54 :22 5 delay inventions? 11 :57 :19 6 including the claims, as amended by any amendment 11 :54 :25 6 A . Uh-huh. 11 :57 :27 7 referred to above." Was that a correct statement that 11 :54 :29 7 Q . Do you recall that? 11 :57 :2 8 8 you made under oath? 11 .54 :33 8 A. Yes. 11 :57 :29 9 A. Well, I wrote much of the patent so I assumed 11 :54 :38 9 Q . At the time the 1997 application was 11 :57 :30 10 that I was familiar with the patent. 11 :54 :41 10 submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office, were you 11 :57 :3 3 11 Q. Did you believe when you signed this 11 :54 :44 11 aware that you were the sole named inventor? 11 :57 :3 5 12 declaration that you reviewed and understand the claims? 11 :54 :46 12 A. That's what I thought, yes . 11 :57 :40 13 A. Yes, I believe that. 11 :54 :52 13 Q . At any time from 1997 until 2004 did it ever 11 :57 :4 1 14 Q . At any time after you signed this 11 :54 :55 14 occur to you that you should not be named as the sole 11 :57 :47 15 declaration, did you ever raise any concern with anybody 11 :54 :59 15 inventor -- 11 :57 :5 1 16 at Magma that you might not be the sole inventor of the 11 :55 :00 16 A. No . 11 :57:5 2 17 inventions in the '446 or '438 patents? 11 :55 :04 17 Q. -- on the patents? 11 :57 :52 18 A. No, I did not . 11:55 :07 18 A. No, it did not. 11 :57 :54 19 Q . Did you ever have any discussion with Magma 11 :55 :08 19 Q . Is it correct that the first time that 11 :57:56 20 on that subject in 1997? 11 :55 :11 20 occurred to you was after this lawsuit was filed? 11 :57 :58 21 A. No. 11:55 :14 21 A. That's correct. 11 :58 :00 22 Q, Did you ever receive any advice from any 11 :55 :14 22 Q . And were you the person that first thought of 11 :58 :00 23 patent prosecutors at the Pillsbury firm about the 11 :55 :19 23 that issue or was that issue given to you by somebody 11 :58:03 24 standard for inventorship? 11 :55 :23 24 else? 11 :58 :0 9 25 A. None that I recall . 11 :55 :25 25 A . I believe that was given to me . 11 :58 :10 316 318

24 (Pages 315 to 318) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q . And who gave you that idea? 11 :58 :12 1 MR. EDELMAN : And your position is that the 12 :00 :53 2 MR . OBSTLER : Object on the term "gave ." 11 :58 :14 2 crime-fraud exception does not apply? 12 :00 :58 3 IT just limit it to that. 11:58:18 3 MR. OBSTLER : That's correct . 12:01:00 4 THE WITNESS : Answer that? 11 :58 :26 4 MR . EDELMAN : That's going to be the subject 12 :01:0 1 5 MR . BULCHIS : Well, if it was a communication 11 :58:28 5 of a pending motion . 12:01 :02 6 from me you should not answer it . If it was a 11 :58 :29 6 Q . So you had a discussion with Rajeev Madhavam 12 :01 :04 7 communication from the O'Melveny attorneys during the 11 :58:33 7 about the letter from Synopsys, correct? 12 :01 :09 8 period of time that they were representing you, we had a 11 :58 :35 8 A. Yes . 12 :01 :12 9 joint defense agreement, you should not answer that. If 11 :58 :37 9 Q. And what did Mr. Madhavam say to you about 12:01 :1 3 10 it was any other circumstances you may answer that. 11 :58 :39 10 the letter? 12:01 :1 5 11 A. Then I should not answer that. 11 :58:42 11 A. That Magma was going to prepare a response . 12:01 :16 12 Q, How many hours did you spend relating to the 11 :58 :44 12 Q . And did he ask you for your input in order to 12 :01:2 1 13 prosecution of the '446 and '438 patent while you were 11 :58 :59 13 prepare the response? 12 :01 :2 4 14 at Magma? 11 :59 :02 14 A. I don't recall that. 12 :01:2 6 15 A. How many hours? Including the drafting of 11 :59:03 15 Q . Did you discuss anything about constant 12 :01 :28 16 the application and later review and revisions? 11 :59 :06 16 delay? 12 :01 :3 0 17 Q. Yes. 11:59 :11 17 A. I don't recall that . 12:01 :3 1 18 A. Well, two or 300 hours . 11 :59 :12 18 Q. Did you discuss with Mr . Madhavam anything 12 :01 :34 19 Q. And during those two or 300 hours that you 11 :59 :21 19 about whether the constant delay techniques were in the 12 :01 :3 6 20 spent on the patent applications, were you aware during 11 :59 :28 20 public domain? 12 :01 :3 9 21 that entire time that you were going to be the sole 111 :59 :32 21 A. I don't recall that. 12 :01 :4 1 22 named inventor for the applications? 11 :59:34 22 Q. Did you say to Mr. Madhavam that you thought 12 :01 :42 23 A. Yes. 11 :59 :37 23 that some or all of the constant delay inventions that 12 :01 :46 24 Q . And did that give any concern in your mind at 11 :59 :37 24 you worked on at Synopsys were in the public domain? 12 :01 :4 9 25 the time? 11 :59 :41 25 A. No. 12 :01 :5 4 319 32 1

1 A. No. 11 :59 :41 1 Q. Are you aware that in responding to the 12 :01 :5 4 2 Q . Are you aware that in 1997 there was a letter 11 :59 :42 2 letter Magma represented that constant delay techniques 12 :01:58 3 sent from Synopsys to Magma concerning the hiring of 11 :59 :56 3 were in the public domain? 12 :02:02 4 you? 12:00 :01 4 A. Yes. 12 :02:04 5 A . Yes. 12 :00 :02 5 Q. Well, how did Magma obtain that information? 12 :02:05 6 Q . And you're aware that Magma provided a 12:00 :03 6 A. Well, there was an additional meeting with 12:02 :07 7 response to that letter? 12 :00 :06 7 Magma's lawyer to draft... 12:02 :1 3 8 A. Yes. 12:00 :07 8 Q. So you had an additional meeting with lawyers 12 :02 :15 9 Q. How did you become aware of the letter 12 :00 :07 9 and Mr. Madhavam before the response was provided to the 12 :02 :1 8 10 received from Synopsys? 12 :00 :12 10 Synopsys letter? 12 :02:2 3 11 A. Rajeev Madhavam showed It to me . 12 :00:16 11 A. Yes. 12 :02 :24 12 Q. Was anyone else present when he showed it to 12 :00 :19 12 MR . OBSTLER : Now that he's established that 12 :02 :25 13 you? 12:00 :22 13 that is the content of those meetings, it is off limits 12 :02 :28 14 A. Not that I recall. 12:00 :22 14 until we resolve the issues, so we're clear . 12:02:3 1 15 Q . And when he showed it to you -- 12 :00:23 15 Q . How many meetings did you have with attorneys 12 :02:35 16 MR . OBSTLER : I just have an objection, to 12 :00:25 16 present concerning the response to the Synopsys letter? 12 :02:36 17 the extent that there was an attorney present I would 12 :00 :27 17 A. To my knowledge there was just one, 12 :02:39 18 argue that its privileged . Now, he doesn't recall that 12 :00 :31 18 Q. And where did that meeting take place? 12 :02 :44 19 there was, but there may well have been, and so I'm a 12 :00 :34 19 A. Phone conference . 12:02 :46 20 little concerned about this . He has not established 12 :00 :40 20 Q . It was a phone conference? 12 :02:48 21 that foundation, but I would just caution to the witness 12:00:42 21 A. (Nodding head.) 12 :02 :51 22 that to the extent there was an attorney present we have 12 :00:45 22 Q . And who was on that phone conference? 12 :02:5 1 23 not waived the privilege with respect to that 12 :00:48 23 A. I believe Magma's lawyer and Rajeev and 12:03 :0 1 24 communication at this time . As long as that's 12 :00 :51 24 myself, 12:03 :08 25 understood . 12:00 :53 25 Q. Who was Magma's lawyer at that time? 12 :03 :08 320 322

25 (Pages 319 to 322) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 A. I don't remember . 12 :03 :15 1 A. Could you repeat the question? 12 :05 :55 2 Q. Was it somebody from the Pillsbury law firm? 12 :03:16 2 MR. EDELMAN : Can you read it back. 12:06:01 3 A. I think so, 12 :03 :19 3 (Record read as requested.) 12 :06 :03 4 Q. Was it David Jakopin? 12 :03 :19 4 A. Yes. 12 :06 :04 l 5 A. I don't think so . 12:03 :24 5 Q . Are you aware of any prior art that contains 12 :06 :05 6 Q . Now, at the time that this phone conference 12 :03 :30 6 all of the elements of the inventions in the '446 or 12 :06:1 2 7 took place, did you believe that the constant delay 12 :03 :33 7 '438 patents? 12 :06 :1 7 8 techniques that you had conceived at Synopsys were in 12 :03 :36 8 A. I believe the ICCAD submission contains all 12 :06 :2 1 9 the public domain? 12 :03 :39 9 or nearly all of the inventions . 12 :06:27 10 A . I believe some constant delay techniques were 12 :03 :40 10 Q . When you refer to the ICCAD submission, what 12 :06 :29 1 11 in the public domain . 12 :03 :43 11 are you referring to? 12 :06 :3 3 12 Q. Did you believe that all of the constant 12 :03:44 12 A. The paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side" . 12:06 :33 13 delay techniques that you had conceived at Synopsys were 12 :03:46 13 Q. Other than the paper "Driving on the 12 :06:35 14 in the public domain? 12 :03 :48 14 Left-hand Side," are you aware of any other prior art 12 :06 :36 15 A. No. 12 :03 :55 15 that contains all of the elements of the inventions in 12 :06 :39 16 Q . In fact, Magma was applying for patent 12 :03 :55 16 the '446 or '438 patent? 12 :06 :42 1 17 protection in 1997 for constant delay techniques, 12 :04 :00 17 A. Public? 12 :06 :4 5 18 correct? 12 :04 :04 18 Q. I'm sorry? 12 :06 :46 19 A. Yeah, but that was later . 12 :04 :08 19 A. You mean public, right? 12 :06:47 20 Q. That was later in 1997? 12 :04 :10 20 Q. Yes. 12 :06:48 21 A, Yeah . 12:04 :12 21 A. No . 12:06 :5 2 22 Q. When was it that Magma first started giving 12 :04 :13 22 Q . In 1996 did you conceive of inventions 12 :06 :5 2 23 consideration to filing a patent for constant delay 12 :04 :20 23 pertaining to the adjustment of delays in a constant 12 :07 :4 1 24 techniques? 12 :04 :22 24 delay methodology? 12 :07 :46 25 A. It was either September or October . 12 :04 :23 25 A. I have to speculate about what exactly you 12 :07 :5 1 323 325

1 Q . And when Magma began the process of 12 :04 :26 1 mean, but I think you're referring to the stretching and 12 :07 :55 2 prosecuting a patent application, did Magma conduct any 12 :04 :35 2 compressing problems, and yes . 12 :08 :00 3 investigation to determine whether the ideas it was 12 :04 :39 3 Q. So you conceived of inventions pertaining to 12 :08 :04 4 seeking to patent were in the public domain? 12 :04 :41 4 the stretching or compressing delays in a constant delay 12 :08 :0 8 5 A. No . 12 :04 :47 5 methodology, correct? 12 :08 :13 6 Q. Did Magma conduct any prior art search? 12 :04 :48 6 A. Yes. 12 :08 :1 4 7 A. Well, I did, locating Sutherland and 12 :04:51 7 Q . And when you conceived of those inventions 12 :08 :15 8 Grodstein and Lehman . 12:04 :57 8 was It -- were the inventions limited to the adjustment 12 :08 :16 9 Q . And did you find any prior art that you 12 :04 :58 9 of those delays before any placement had been conducted, 12 :08 :21 10 thought disclosed all of the elements of the inventions 12 :05 :00 10 or did you also conceive of the possibility of doing the 12 :08 :24 11 in the '446 or '438 patents? 12:05:03 11 adjustment of delays after the placement step had 12 :08 :2 8 12 A. I did not think, no. 12 :05 :06 12 occurred? 12 :08 :31 13 Q. When the application was submitted in 1997 by 12 :05 :11 13 A. Let's see. I think It was only before . 12 :08:3 1 14 Magma pertaining to constant delay, did you believe that 12 :05 :15 14 MR. EDELMAN : I'm going to mark as as Exhibit 12 :08 :5 1 15 the inventions contained In the application were novel 12 :05 :19 15 31 a document that's been Bates stamped IBM 003927 to 12 :09 :0 1 16 and patentable? 12:05 :23 16 003943. 12:09 :08 17 A . I thought they probably were, yes . 12 :05 :25 17 MR . OBS TER : Michael, It says IBM 12 :09 :29 18 Q. Do you still believe that they were novel and 12 :05 :28 18 confidential . 12 :09 :3 1 19 patentable in 1997? 12 :05 :31 19 MR . EDELMAN : Right . 12 :09 :3 2 20 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, vague as to time. 12:05 :32 20 MR . OBSTLER: So I assume this is governed by 12 :09:32 21 I'm not sure if you're asking for his recollection now 12 :05:35 21 at least the IBM protective order? 12 :09:36 22 or what he thought then . 12 :05 :37 22 MR . EDELMAN : Yeah . I would think its 12:09 :38 23 MR . BULCHIS : I'll object also as calling for 12 :05:38 23 governed by both . Actually, they're identical. They're 12 :09 :40 24 a legal opinion from a lay witness as to 12 :05 :40 24 identical in content . 12 :09 :44 25 patentability. 12 :05 :44 25 MR . OBSTLER: So I guess with respect to the 12:09 :45 324 326

26 (Pages 323 to 326)

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-803-aa30b20e3544 1 portion of this document and the testimony that comes up 12 :09 :49 1 agreement. 12:12 :06 2 with respect to this document that that will be 12 :09 :53 2 3 designated confidential? 12:09:56 3 (Pages 330-331 are Confidential and bound separately .) 4 MR. EDELMAN : Yes . 12 :09 :56 4 5 MR . BULCHIS : I assume that showing this to 12 :09 :57 5 6 the witness does not violate the IBM protective order? 12 :09 :59 6 7 MR . EDELMAN : My understanding it would not . 12:10 :04 7 8 MR . OBSTLER : Well, ]provided -- I called 12 :10 :06 8 9 IBM and asked them about the documents that we wanted to 12 :10 :08 9 10 show, and Bill Halgney said we could do that. I don't 12 :10 :09 10 11 know if you've done that. I assume as long as the 12 :10 :13 11 12 witness Is agreeing to be bound by the magistrate 12 :10:15 12 13 judge's order we don't have a problem . I can't speak 12 :10 :20 13 14 for IBM, but leave that at this . I have a difficult 12 :10:24 14 15 time believing that IBM would have a problem with it, 12 :10 :30 15 16 but as long as the witness is going to he bound, as I 12 :10 :32 16 17 said, by the magistrate's order . 12 :10:36 1 7 18 MR . EDELMAN : That's right . And this would 12 :10 :37 1 8 19 be governed by the protective order so the witness 12 :10 :38 19 20 wouldn't receive a copy to review with the deposition 12 ;10 :41 20 21 transcript, the same way -- let me back up . Under the 12 :10 :43 2 1 22 protective order there's a particular method for dealing 12 :10 :48 22 23 with confidential or attorneys and consultants only 12 :10:50 23 24 information that is introduced to a third party during a 12 :10 :53 24 25 deposition, and one of the provisions that is in the 12 :10:56 25 327 329

1 protective order is that though it's okay to show the 12 :10 :58 1 Q . I want to refer you back to Exhibit 25. This 12 :14 :4 8 2 document during the deposition, what you don't want to 12 :11 :02 2 is your first draft of the patented application. Okay? 12 :14 :5 5 3 have happen is that you provide, you know, an extra copy 12 ;11 :05 3 A . Yes. 12 :15 :42 4 of the confidential document to the witness after the 12 :11 :08 4 Q. I want to refer you to claim 1 on page 12 ;15 :42 5 deposition to review, 12 :11 :11 5 SY 4560 . Do you see in claim 1 it indicates a method 12 :15 :4 5 6 So the protective order provides that that 12 :11:13 6 whereby synthesis, then placement, then sizing is 12 :15 :5 1 7 document would not be in the deposition transcript to be 12 :11 :16 7 performed? 12 :15:54 8 given to the witness . 12:11 :19 8 A. Yes. 12 :16:0 1 9 MR . BULCHIS : So you understand, we are not 12 :11 :21 9 Q . Was it your understanding that it was part of 12 :16 :0 1 10 governing our handling of anything with respect to the 12 :11:23 10 the invention contained within this document that sizing 12 :16 :0 8 11 protective order. If Synopsys considers this 12 :11 :27 11 would be performed after placement? 12 :16 :1 0 12 confidential we would keep it confidential pursuant to 12 :11 :30 12 A. Yes. 12 :16 :1 3 13 the agreement that Dr. van Ginneken has with Synopsys. 12 :11:33 13 Q. If you could refer to claim 3. Do you see 12 :16 :13 fi 14 That's the only basis we would keep it confidential . 12 :11 :37 14 that as a claim pertaining to a sizing algorithm? 12:16 :22 15 MR . OBSTLER : Also I think, Ed, the 12 :11 :40 15 A. Yes. 12 :16 :3 0 16 magistrate judge made clear if we're going to introduce 12 :11 :42 16 Q . In the first sentence it says "The method of 12 :16 :4 1 17 documents yesterday under the thing that I thought you 12 :11 :46 17 claim 2, where step C is comprised of steps." Does that 12 :16:4 6 18 said you would agree to, and maybe I'm wrong, but we 12 :11 :48 18 indicate to you that this claim was reciting elements to 12 :16 :5 2 19 would agree to keep the documents confidential pursuant 12 :11 :51 19 be performed during the sizing step in claim 1? 12 :16 :55 20 to the ruling of the magistrate judge . 12 :11 :53 20 A. Yes. 12:17 :00 21 MR . BULCHIS: We agreed to keep it 12 :11 :54 21 Q. So the steps listed in claim 3 were to be 12 :17:0 0 22 confidential, but not with respect to any order or any 12 :11 :55 22 performed after placement, in this draft, correct? 12 :17 :04 23 protective order or agreement between Synopsys and 12 :11 :59 23 A. Yes. 12:17:0 7 24 Magma . We agreed to keep it confidential because we 12 :12 :01 24 Q . Now, let me move you to claim 4 . Do you see 12 :17 :07 25 have an obligation to do so under the Synopsys 12 :12:04 25 in claim 4 it makes a reference to a method as part of 12 :17 :14 328 332

27 (Pages 327 to 332) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 step D? 12 :17 :22 1 Q . Why did Mr . Nijssen set up that meeting? 12 :18 :37 2 A . Uh-huh . 12 :17 :25 2 A. Maybe I initiated that. Why? It was just 12 :18 :37 3 Q. So claim 4 is referring to steps which are 12 :17:26 3 getting together. I was in California for this meeting 12 :18 :37 4 part of the steps in claim 3 which occur after 12 :17 :29 4 with the lawyers, and since these are friends of mine we 12 :18 :37 5 placement, correct? 12 :17 :34 5 decided to meet over dinner . 12:18 :37 6 A. Yes. 12 :17 :37 6 Q . When you had this meeting and discussion with 12 :18 :37 7 Q . So step 4 is describing activity that occurs 12 :17 :37 7 Mr . Nijssen in 2004, did you discuss any issues relating 12 :18 :37 8 after placement, in this draft, correct? 12 :17 :41 8 to the dispute between Magma and Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 9 A. Yes. 12 :17:43 9 A. We discussed the dispute in general terms, 12 :18:37 10 Q . Now, do you see in claim 4 it makes a 12 :17 :44 10 yes . 12 :18 :37 11 reference to adjusting the gate delay? 12 :17 :47 11 Q. What about the dispute did you discuss? 12 :18 :37 12 A . Yes. 12:17 :50 12 A. I don't recall the issues that clearly, but, 12:18 :37 13 Q . So does that indicate to you that you had 12 :17 :50 13 you know, generally where we thought that this lawsuit 12 :18 :37 14 conceived of the possibility of adjusting delays after 12 :17 :53 14 might head or... 12 :18 :37 15 placement? 12 :17 :57 15 Q. And did Mr . Nijssen have an opinion on where 12 :18:37 16 A . Yes. 12:17 :58 16 he thought the lawsuit might head? 12 :18 :3 7 17 Q. So is it correct to state that at Synopsys 12 :17 :59 17 A. I don't recall that . 12 :18:3 7 18 you conceived of the adjustment of delays after a 12 :18 :07 18 Q. Did you have an opinion on that? 12 :18 :37 19 placement step in a constant delay methodology? 12 :18:11 19 A . No, I was quite unsure . 12 :18 :3 7 20 MR . OBSTLER : I object to the term "at 12 :18 :13 20 Q. I'm sorry? 12 :18 :37 21 Synopsys." It's vague and ambiguous and misleading . 12:18 :15 21 A . I was quite unsure what would happen next . 12 :18 :37 22 A . That appears to be correct . 12 :18 :21 22 Q. Anything else you discussed with Mr . Nijssen 12 :18 :37 23 MR . EDELMAN : Now is a good time for lunch . 12:18:28 23 relating to this dispute? 12 :18 :37 24 MR . BULCHIS : That's fine with us . 12 :18 :31 24 A . Not really. 12 :18 :37 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going oft the record . The 12:18 :34 25 Q. Did you discuss with Mr . Nijssen whether you 12 :18 :37 333 335

1 time now is approximately 12 :18 p.m . 12 :18 :35 1 should retain different counsel than O'Melveny & Myers? 12 :18 :37 2 (Lunch recess .) 12 :18 :37 2 A. No, I did not discuss that with him. 12 :18 :3 7 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 12 :18 :37 3 Q. What was his title at Magma ? 12 :18 :37 4 The time now is approximately 1 :52 p .m . 12 :18 :37 4 A. Currently? 12 :18 :3 7 5 BY MR . EDELMAN : 12 :18 :37 5 Q . At the time you met with him . 12:18 :37 6 Q . Afternoon . 12 :18 :37 6 A. Well, I don't know what his title is but he's 12 :18 :37 7 A. Can I say something ? 12 :18 :37 7 an engineer . He's an individual contributor. 12 :18 :3 7 8 Q . Yes . 12 :18 :37 8 Q . Did you work with him when you were at Magma? 12 :18 :3 9 A. We were talking earlier about meetings with 12 :18 :37 9 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 10 Magma people in 2004 . I'm not sure that we exhausted 12 :18 :37 10 Q . Was he at Magma in 1997? 12 :18 :37 11 all of the meetings , 12 :18:37 11 A. I think he joined very late in '97, like 12 :18 :37 12 Q. In 2004 as opposed to 2005? 12 :18 :37 12 December or so. 12 :18 :37 13 A . Yes . 12 :18 :37 13 Q, Did you have any discussion with Mr . Nijssen 12 :18 :37 14 Q. So there were additional meetings with Magma 12 :18 :37 14 in 2004 concerning the inventions in the patents? 12 :18 :37 15 people in 2004? 12 :18 :37 15 A. No. 12:18 :3 7 16 A . Yeah . I met once with Raymond Nijssen for 12 :18:37 16 Q . And you said you had a discussion with 12 :18:37 17 dinner, and I met with Michel Berkelaar, came to my 12 :18 :37 17 another individual. Could you spell the last name of 12 :18 :37 18 house. 12 :18 :37 18 the other individual? 12 :18 :37 19 Q. When was your meeting with Mr . Nijssen? 12 :18 :37 19 A. Berkelaar, B-E-R-K-E-L-A-A-R . 12:18 :37 20 A . That meeting was after the meeting with 12 :18 :37 20 Q. First name is Michel? 12 :18 :37 21 O'Melveny at the Magma offices, so that would be early 12 :18 :37 21 A. Michel, M-I-C-H-E-L . 12 :18 :37 22 October . 12 :18 :37 22 Q . And what was his title at Magma when you met 12 :18 :37 23 Q . And did Mr . Nijssen contact you to set up 12 :18:37 23 with him? 12 :18:3 7 24 that meeting ? 12 :18 :37 24 A. I don't know exactly what his title is, but 12 :18 :37 25 A . Yes . 12 :18 :37 25 he's a manager of an R and D group . 12 :18 :37 334 336

28 (Pages 333 to 336) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92adO-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa3Ob2Oe3544 1 Q. Did you work with Mr . Berkelaar at Magma? 12 :18 :37 1 Q. And why did you stop working with Mr . Kudva? 12 :18 :37 2 A. To some extent. He was always at a different 12 :18:37 2 A. Well, okay, I stopped working with him on the 12 :18 :3 7 3 site. 12:18:37 3 experimental work . We had completed an experimental 12 :18:37 4 Q. What did you discuss with Mr . 8erkelaar? 12 :18 :37 4 setup, we did some experiments, reported those in the 12 :18 :37 5 A. He didn't want to discuss anything related to 12 :18 :37 5 white paper. After the white paper was complete, this 12 :18 :37 6 the lawsuit. 12 :18 :37 6 assignment basically came to an end as an assignment. I 12 :18 :37 7 Q. Why did you have a discussion with Mr . 12 :18:37 7 think he was called back to do other things . 1 12 :18 :37 8 Berkelaar? 12 :18 :37 8 continued to work with Li-Pen Yuan who was there after 12 :18 :37 9 A. He came up to my house for a visit as a 12 :18 :37 9 that as a summer student . We continued to work on the 12 :18 :37 10 friend, 12 :18 :37 1 0 experimental setup for another few months . 12:18:3 7 11 Q. Did you bring up the lawsuit when you met 12 :18 :37 1 1 Q. Were you dissatisfied at any point with 12 :18 :37 12 with him and he said he didn't want to talk about it? 12 :18 :37 12 anything that Mr . Kudva had done? 12 :18 :37 13 A. Right. 12 :18:37 13 A. Well, yes, you can say that . 12 :18 :3 7 14 Q . Did you want to talk about the lawsuit with 12 :18 :37 14 Q. Why were you dissatisfied? 12 :18 :37 15 Mr. Berkelaar? 12 :18 :37 15 A. While initially the collaboration between us 12:18 :37 16 A. Not really. 12 :18 :37 16 went quite well, it became increasingly difficult to get 12 :18 :37 17 Q. Did you ever have an understanding in 2004 12 :18 :37 17 him to do things, particularly implementation of the 12 :18:37 18 that Magma was putting pressure on you to align yourself 12 :18 :37 18 thing -- the code that he was assigned took a long time 12 :18 :37 19 on the Magma side? 12 :18 :37 19 and had problems, and so I felt he was not responsive . 12:18 :3 7 20 MR . OBSTLER : Objection . 12 :18 :37 20 Q. Did Mr. Kudva create source code for the 12 :18 :37 21 A. Pressure, I don't know if I would call it 12 :18:37 21 prototype in-1996? 12 :18 :3 7 22 pressure, but yes, they were interested in that . 12 :18 :37 22 A. Yes, he did to some extent, 12 :18 :37 23 Q. Did you feel pressure to align yourself with 12 :18 :37 23 Q. Do you know what aspect of the prototype he 12 :18 :37 24 Magma in 2004? 12 :18 :37 . 24 created code for? 12 :18 :3 7 25 MR . BULCHIS : I object to the form of the 12 :18 :37 25 A. Well, well, I'm a little fuzzy on that . I 12 :18 :37 337 339

1 question as to "aligned ." It's ambiguous, vague . 12 :18 :37 1 think he created code for the statistical model, for the 12 :18 :37 2 A. Not much, if any. 12:18 :37 2 wire load model, and I think he may have also worked on 12 :18 :37 l 3 Q. Did you feel any pressure in 2004 to align 12 :18 .37 3 the buffering code, if I remember correctly . 12:18 :3 7 4 yourself with Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 4 Q. Would that code have been entered into 12 :18 :37 5 A. No. 12 :18 :37 5 Synopsys's code base in 1996? 12 :18 :3 7 6 Q. Is Magma reimbursing you for any costs 12 :18:37 6 A. Yes . 12:18 :3 7 7 associated with this deposition? 12 :18 :37 7 Q. Did you keep a copy of the code for your 12 :18 :37 8 A. I'm not really sure about that . 12 :18 :37 8 prototype during the time you worked at Synopsys? 12 :18:37 9 Q. Do you intend to seek reimbursement of any 12 :18 :37 9 A. I had a copy that I worked on, yes . 12:18 :3 7 10 costs? 12:18 :37 10 Q. And would that copy reflect which particular 12 :18:37 11 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 11 individuals entered portions of code into the code 12 :18 :37 12 Q. Would that include the costs of traveling 12 :18 :37 12 database? 12 :18 :3 7 13 here for the deposition from your home? 12 :18 :37 13 A. You cannot determine that, I don't think . 12 :18 :37 14 A. Well, that's only a few miles, so that's 12 :18 :37 14 It's all mixed up . I don't believe the code was in the 12 :18 :37 15 hardly significant . 12 :18:37 15 source code control, so it's not clear . There's no 12 :18:37 16 Q. Well, what costs would you seek reimbursement 12 :18 :37 16 record of revisions . 12:18 :3 7 17 for? 12 :18 :37 17 Q. How did Mr. Kudva provide code to you related 12 :18 :37 18 A. Mr . Bulchis's time . 12 :18:37 18 to the prototype? 12 :18 :37 19 Q. For the time of your attorney? 12 :18 :37 19 MR. OBSTLER: Objection . Its ambiguous, and 12 :18 :37 20 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 20 I don't understand the witness's testimony to be that he 12 :18 :37 21 MR . BULCHIS : Compared to O'Melveny fees 12 :18 :37 21 was providing code to Mr . van Ginneken . 12:18 :37 22 those are insignificant, too . 12:18 :37 22 A. Well, we exchanged code by electronic means, 12 :18 :37 23 Q . Now, at some point in 1996 did you stop 12 :18 :37 23 I believe E-mail, or if not E-mail then FDP or something 12 :18:37 24 working with Mr . Kudva on the NGSS project? 12 :18 :37 24 like that. 12 :18 :37 25 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 2 5 Q . Now, this prototype that you worked on in 12 :18 :37 338 340

29 (Pages 337 to 340 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 1996, did this prototype involve code to perform logic 12 :18 :37 1 Q, I'm sorry. Does TDP stand for -- 12 :18 :37 2 synthesis using constant delay? 12 :18 :37 2 A. Time driven placement, 12 :18 :37 3 A. Yes . 12:18 :37 3 Q, Is that the name of the tool? 12:18 :37 4 Q . Did it contain any code to perform placement? 12 :18 :37 4 A. Yes. 12 :18:3 7 5 A. No. There was sort of a mock-up wire load 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Did you work on the TDP product at IBM? 12 :18 :37 6 model to mock the placement, to simulate the placement . 12:18 :37 6 A . No . 12 :18 :3 7 7 Q . But that wasn't real placement? 12:18 :37 7 Q. How did you become familiar with that 12 :18 :37 8 A. No. 12 :18 :37 8 product? 12 :18 :37 9 Q . At any time before you left Synopsys, were 12 :18 :37 9 A. I worked on using logic synthesis in a post 12 :18 :37 10 you aware of whether or not Synopsys had created code 12 :18 :37 10 placement environment, so while logic synthesis system 12 :18 :37 11 for placement that could be integrated with the constant 12 :18 :37 11 and time-driven placement system were two different 12 :18 :37 12 delay synthesis? 12 :18 :37 12 systems, what we did was to read in logic into the 12 :18 :37 13 A . Synopsys was in the process of creating code 12 :18 :37 13 placer and then write out placement and read it back 12 :18 :37 14 for placement for the constant delay synthesis . I 12 :18 :37 14 into logic synthesis system where we did further 12 :18 :37 15 believe that the patent, the 114 patent, describes the 12 :18 :37 15 optimization on the project . 12:18 :37 16 implementation of that placer, That placer was intended 12 :18 :37 16 Q. So is it fair to say that when you were at 12 :18 :37 17 for the NGSS system . 12 :18:37 17 IBM that you worked on tools that linked with the TDP 12 :18 :37 18 Q . As of the time you left Synopsys had work on 12 :18 :37 18 tool? 12 :18 :37 19 the placement aspect of the constant delay synthesi? 12 :18 :37 19 A . Yes, through files I own . I mean, link 12 ;18 :37 20 project been completed? 12 :18 :37 20 suggests a common executable . It was not a common 12 :18 :3: 21 A . Completed? 12 :18 :37 21 executable . 12 :18 :37 22 Q . Yes. 12 :18 :37 22 Q . And it was through your work on other 12:18 :37 23 A . No. 12 :18 :37 23 products at IBM that you learned that the TDP code 12 :18 :37 24 Q . Did you ever form any intent to mislead the 12 :18 :37 24 assigned cells into buckets? 12 :18:3 7 25 Patent and Trademark Office in any respect? 12 :18 :37 25 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 341 343

1 A. No. 12 :18 :37 1 Q. Do you recall who it was at IBM that came up 12 :18 :37 2 Q. And that's true with respect to the '446 and 12 :16 :37 2 with the idea of assigning cells into buckets? 12 :18 :37 3 '438 patents, correct? 12 :18 :37 3 A. Well, they weren't called buckets there, but 12 :18 :37 4 A . Right . 12:18 :37 4 they were essentially the same principle . 12:18 :37 5 Q. Did you ever form any intent to mislead the 12 :18 :37 5 Q . What was -- what were they called at IBM? 12 :18 :37 6 Patent and Trademark Office with respect to any patent 12 :18 :37 6 A. They called them precincts . 12;18 :37 7 that you worked on while you were at Magma? 12 :18 :37 7 Q . Spell that . 12:18 :37 8 A . No. 12 :18 :37 8 A. Precinct . 12 :18 :37 9 Q. Yesterday you were provided some testimony on 12 :18 :37 9 Q . P-R-E-C-I-N-C-T-S? 12 :18 :37 10 buckets . Do you recall that? 12 :18:37 10 A. Yes. I don't know. I didn't come up with 12 :18 :37 11 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 11 the name . 12 :18 :37 12 Q, When did you first hear of the idea of 12 :18 :37 12 Q. And could you describe in a little more 12 :18 :37 13 assigning cells into buckets? 12 :18 :37 13 detail how precinct worked in the TDP code? 12 :18 :37 14 A. Oh . I think the idea, the first time I heard 12 :18:37 14 A. Well, they work like buckets. You have a 12 :18 :3 7 15 about that idea was at IBM. 12 :18 :37 15 grid of square areas . Each area can contain a number of 12 :18 :37 16 Q . And when at IBM did you first hear that idea? 12 :18 :37 16 cells and the placer assigns the cells to the square 12 :18:37 17 A. '89 . 12 :18 :37 17 areas as operation of a placer . In our experiments at 12 :18 :37 18 Q. And how did you hear of that idea at IBM? 12 :18 :37 18 least, it would not perform detailed placement, so the 12 :18 :37 19 A. There was a placement program called TDP, 12 :18 :37 19 cells would be assigned to a bucket without giving a 12 :18 :37 20 time driven placement. 12 :18:37 20 detailed X, Y location, 12:18 :3 7 21 Q . Was the assigning of cells into the buckets 12 :18 :37 21 Q . Before you worked at IBM had you ever heard 12 :18 :37 22 one of the ways that IBM tools performed placement? 12 :18 :37 22 of the use of the term "buckets" in any context in the 12 :18 :37 23 A. Yes. 12 :18:37 23 EDA industry? 12 :18:37 24 Q. What IBM tools used this TDP? 12 :18 :37 24 MR . OBSTLER: Objection . Misstates his 12:18 :37 25 A, TDP is a tool itself. 12 :18 :37 2 5 testimony. The term buckets wasn't used at IBM . 12 :18 :37 342 344

30 (Pages 341 to 344) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 A. Buckets, the term buckets is used in 12 :18 :37 1 Compiler. 12 :18 :37 2 different places, like bucket sword would mean something 12 :18:37 2 Q . Are you aware of whether there are references 12 :18 :37 3 quite different there . I do not believe I had heard 12:18:37 3 to the term buckets in the ABO code? 12:18:37 4 this term in this meaning before . 12 :18 :37 4 A. No. 12 :18 :37 5 Q. You had not heard the term buckets in this 12 :18 :37 5 Q. So you first heard of the idea of assigning 12 :18 :37 6 particular context before? 12 :18 :37 6 cells in bucket when you were at IBM, correct? 12 :18 :37 7 A. Yeah, 12:18 :37 7 A. Yes . 12 :18 :3 7 8 Q. Is bucket a term that is more generally used 12 :18 :37 8 Q. So by the time you joined Synopsys you were 12 :18 :37 9 in the EDA industry to mean a wider variety of things 12 :18 :37 9 aware of the idea of assigning cells into buckets? 12 :18 :37 10 than the particular implementation of buckets you're 12 ;18 :37 10 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 11 describing as used by Magma? 12 :18 :37 11 Q. So during the time you were at Synopsys you 12 :18 :37 12 A. Well, its not a generally used term, but say 12 :18:37 12 were aware of the idea of assigning cells into buckets? 12 :18 :3 7 13 bucket sword, which is not really a particular EDA thing 12 :18 :37 13 A. Yes. 12 :18:3 7 14 but a computer science thing, uses it in a different 12 :18:37 14 Q. During the time you worked on your constant 12 :18 :37 15 meaning . So I believe its used by various authors as 12 :18:37 15 delay inventions you were aware of the idea of assigning 12 :18:3 7 16 containers for something in various different context, 12 :18 :37 16 cells into buckets? 12 :18 :3 7 17 but I have not heard the use of buckets as meaning a 12 :18 :37 17 A . Yes, but I wasn't really thinking of it . 12 :18 :37 18 rectangular or a square area in a grid for the purpose 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Is one way to create buckets through 12 :18 :3 7 19 of placement before I joined Magma . 12 :18 :37 19 partitioning? 12 :18:3 7 20 Q . Are you aware more generally that buckets is 12 :18 :37 20 A. If you create -- if you think of buckets as 12 :18 :37 21 a term that would be contained, for instance, in 12 :18 :37 21 created, you know, in a sequential process, yes . 12 :18 :3 7 22 scientific dictionaries? 12 :18 :37 22 Q. Can you create buckets through the use of a 12 :18 :3 7 23 A. Have I looked up? No, I haven't looked up 12 :18:37 23 min-cut group? 12 :18 :37 24 the term in a scientific dictionary. 12 :18 :37 24 A. Well, you could assign cells to buckets in 12 :18 :3 7 25 Q. You referred earlier to buckets generically 12 :18 :37 25 that manner, yes . 12 :18 :3 7 345 347

1 referring to containers? 1218 :37 1 Q. Other than precincts, is there any other name 12 :18 :37 2 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 2 for buckets that you have heard whether at IBM, Synopsys 12 :18 :37 3 Q . Would it be accurate to say that a general 12 :18 :37 3 or Magma? 12 :18 :37 4 definition in computer science overall of the term 12 :18 :37 4 A . Can't think of it. 12 :18 :3 7 5 buckets would be some sort of container or a group of 12 :18 :37 5 Q . Have you ever heard buckets referred to as 12 :18 :37 6 things? 12 :18 :37 6 bins, B-I-N-S? 12 :18 :3 7 7 A. I think that's reasonable . 12 :18 :37 7 A . Not that I recall . 12:18:37 8 Q. Now getting back to your more specific 12 :18 :37 8 Q. Again, referring now to the more specific 12 :18 :3 7 9 understanding of buckets as used by Magma, which is a 12 :18 :37 9 understanding of buckets in relation to Magma's 12 :18 :37 10 rectangular rid and the rest, did Synopsy s g use that 12 :18 :37 10 implementation, was it your understanding that buckets 12:18:37 11 idea of buckets? 12 :18 :37 11 needed to have a two-dimensional grid in order to be a 12 :18 :37 12 A, I'm not aware of that, no. 12 :18 :37 12 bucket? 12 :18 :3 7 13 Q . Are you aware of whether any products at 12 :18 :37 13 A . That was the concept as it was thought of at 12 :18 :37 .14 Synopsys used- the concept of buckets? 12 :18 :37 14 Magma, yes . 12 :18 :37 15 A. I'm not aware of that, but there's several 12 :18 :37 15 Q. Well, could the groups of cells still be 12 :18 :37 16 products at Synopsys that do physical design or 12 :18 :37 16 buckets if they weren't on a two-dimensional grid? 12 :18 :37 17 placement, placement-like things like floor planning, 12 :18 :37 17 A. Well, if you changed the definition of bucket 12:18 :37 18 but I'm not really familiar with these products, and I 12 :18:37 18 it could be, but that's not what we were thinking of. 12:18 :37 19 wasn't then. 12:18 :37 19 Q . Now, did you understand -- again dealing with 12 :18 :37 20 Q. Are you familiar with the ABO code at 12 :18 :37 20 this more specific understanding of buckets at Magma -- 12 :18 :3 7 21 Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 21 that buckets had to be a fixed size? 12 :18 :37 22 - A . Yeah: I'm somewhat familiar with that, yes. 12 :18 :37 22 A. The plan at Magma was to keep them fixed 12 :18 :3 7 23 Q. What is the ASO code? 12 :18:37 23 size, yes . 12:18 :3 7 24 A . ASO code is a version of MIS, essentially, 12 :18:37 24 Q. Is it correct that at Magma one of the ways 12 :18 :37 25 electric synthesis code, which is embedded in Design 12 :18 :37 25 that buckets was implemented involved changing the size 12 :18 :3 7 346 348

31 (Pages 345 to 348 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 of the buckets? 12 :18 :37 1 answer is that the inventions in the '438 patent are not 12 :18 :37 2 A. No, I don't believe that's correct. 12 :18 :37 2 disclosed in the document that has been marked as 12 :18 :37 3 Q. You believe that once the size of the buckets 12 :18 :37 3 Exhibit 8? 12 :18 :3 7 4 was fixed that the buckets would stay that size? 12 :18 :37 4 A. That's,correct. 12 :18 :3 7 5 A. I believe so, yes . 12:18 :37 5 Q. Do you see in claim 1 of the '438 patent 12 :18 :37 6 6 there is a reference to associated relative delay 12 :18 :37 7 (Pages 350-393 are Confidential and bound separately .) 7 values? 12 :18:3 7 8 8 A. Yes. 12 :18:37 9 9 Q. Is it your understanding that that is another 12 :18 :37 10 10 name for initial intended delay? 12 :18 :37 11 11 A . I'm not sure of that. I think this may mean 12 :18 :37 12 12 a delay that's already been modified . 12:18 :3 7 13 13 Q. A delay that's already been modified when? 12 :18 :37 14 14 A. Through a stretching process . 12:18 :3 7 15 15 Q. And how do the words associated relative 12 :18 :37 16 16 delay tell you that? 12 :18 :3 7 17 17 A. Well, its not -- it doesn't say it's an 12 :18 :37 18 18 initial delay . 12 :18 :3 7 19 19 Q. So the associated relative delay you believe 12 :18 :37 20 20 is referring to a delay that might be_after the initial 12 :18 :37 21 21 target delay selected? 12 :18 :37 22 22 A, Yes . 12 :18 :37 23 23 Q. What is your understanding as to when an 12 :18 :37 24 24 associated relative delay would be selected? Would it 12 :18 :37 25 25 be during logic synthesis or -- 12:18 :37 349 395

1 Q. I'd ask you, Dr. van Ginneken, to review the 12 :18 :37 1 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 2 claims of the '438 patent and tell me whether any of the 12 :18 :37 2 Q. Not during placement? 12 :18 :3 7 3 claims of the '438 patent are disclosed in the document 12 :18 :37 3 A. Possibly, but possibly already during logic 12 :18 :37 4 that has been marked as Exhibit 8 . 12 :18 :37 4 synthesis . 12 :18 :37 5 MR . BULCHIS : I'm sorry, can you read that 12 :18 :37 5 Q . You see that the second element of claim 1 12 :18 :3 7 6 back? 12 :18 :37 6 talks about determining an initial intended area? 12 :18 :37 7 (Record read as requested .) 12 :18:37 7 A. Uh-huh, 12:18 :3 7 8 A. I'm having difficulty doing this. I'm not 12 :18 :37 8 Q . Is it your understanding -- I'm sorry, was 12 :18 :37 9 sure . Do you really want an answer right now? 12 :18 :37 9 that a yes? 12 :18 :37 10 Q. Well, I'm happy to go through and break It 12 :18 :37 10 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 11 down if it's what we need to do . Are you unsure whether 12 :18 :37 11 Q. Was it your understanding that the 12 :18 :37 12 or not the document that is Exhibit 8 discloses each of 12 :18 :37 12 determination of area as referred to in claim 1 was a 12 :18 :37 13 the elements in claim 1? 12 :18 :37 13 determination that would be made after a placement step? 12 :18:37 14 A. Yeah, I'm unsure . 12 :18 :37 14 A. Not necessarily as I read it here . 12 :18 :3 7 15 Q. Can you point to any place in the document 12 :18 :37 15 Q. Is it possible to perform the second element 12 :18 :37 16 marked as Exhibit 8 where it discloses selecting a 12 :18 :37 16 of claim 1 without doing any placement? 12:18 :37 17 priority of cells from the cell library? 12 :18 :37 17 A. Subject to inaccuracy, you know . In the 12 :18 :37 18 A. No. In that manner certainly it's not in the 12:18:37 18 absence of placement there is inaccuracy in the wire 12 :18 :37 19 document . It may be in the document that I've been 12 :18 :37 19 length, so this inaccuracy would be reflected in an 12 :18 :37 20 referring to. 12:18:37 20 inaccurbcyin the area . 12:18 :3 7 21 Q. When I'm asking you for whether or not the 12 :18:37 21 Q . Well, was it your intention when the 12:18 :37 22 document discloses it, I mean actually whether or not 12 :18 :37 22 application was drafted to have the associated relative 12 :18 :37 23 it's in the document, not whether -- 12 :18:37 23 delay values be determined after placement had begun? 12 :18 :37 24 A. Then the answer is no . 12:18 :37 24 A. There was certainly an intention to do it 12 :18 :37 25 Q . Just to make the record clear, sir, your 12 :18 :37 25 then, but its also possible to do it earlier . 12 :18:37 394 396

32 (Pages 349 to 396) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q. When you were working on the prototype at 12 :18:37 1 MR . OBSTLER : You know, again, I'm going to 12:18 :37 2 Synopsys in 1996, did that prototype determine 12:18 :37 2 object. If that communication took place in the period 12:18 :37 3 associated relative delay values? 12 :18 :37 3 where there was a joint defense agreement -- at least 12:18 :37 4 A . Not the initial prototype that we used for 12 :18 :37 4 it's our understanding when that joint defense agreement 12:18 :37 5 the experiments that were reported in the white paper, 12 :18 :37 5 was still in place -- I'm going to object to testimony 12 :18 :37 6 but Li-Pen Yuan later added that capability . 12:18 :37 6 about that communication . Counsel, I don 't know if -- 12:18 :37 7 Q. I want to direct your attention back to the 12 :18 :37 7 MR. BULCHIS: Well, if it's -- 12 :18 :3 7 8 slides marked "Speed : New Paradigms and Design for 12 :18 :37 8 MR. EDELMAN : I believe the testimony earlier 12 :18 :37 9 Performance," Exhibit 9 . 12 :18 :37 9 was that that agreement had ended, 12 :18 :37 10 Are the slides that are marked as Exhibit 9 12 :18 :37 10 MR . OB57LER : That's correct, you're 12 :18 :3 7 11 the slides that you found at Magma's request? 12 :18 :37 11 absolutely right. But the question is when -- you 12 :18 :37 12 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 12 haven't established a foundation for when the request 12 :18 :37 13 Q. And you found these slides in 2005, correct? 12 :18 :37 13 came, and I believe the request came during the period 12 :18 :37 14 A. Yes, 12 :18 :37 14 of the joint defense agreement . 12 :18 :3 7 15 Q. Who prepared these slides? 12 :18:37 15 MR . BULCHIS: I can't recall one way or the 12 :18 :37 16 A. Who prepared these slides? 12 :18 :37 16 other . 12 :18 :37 17 Q. Yes. 12:18 :37 17 MR. EDELMAN : Can you read back the question? 12 :18 :37 18 A. When they originally were designed? 12 :18 :37 18 (Record read as requested .) 12 :18 :37 19 Q . Yes. 12 :18 :37 19 MR . BULCHIS : And based on counsel's 12 :18 :37 20 A. The first half are prepared by Ralph Otten 12 :18 :37 20 representation that there was a joint defense agreement 12:18 :37 21 and the second half are prepared by myself . 12:18 :37 21 at that time, I would instruct the witness not to 12:18 :37 22 Q. Can you more specifically tell me when the 12 :18 :37 22 answer. 12:18 :37 23 portion of the slides that were prepared by Mr . Otten 12 :18 :37 23 MR . OBSTLER : And I'll also represent that 1 12 :18:37 24 ends? 12 :18 :37 24 believe the communication occu rred during the period of 12 :18 :37 25 A. Ends on page Magma 0517462 . 12 :18 :37 2 5 the joint defense agreement . 12:18 :37 397 399

1 Q. So everything after Magma 517462 was prepared 12 :18 :37 1 MR . EDELMAN : This question just asks who . 12:18 :37 2 by yourself? 12 :18 :37 2 A. I won't answer the question then . Oh, who 12 :18 :37 3 A. Except for the last page . 12 :18 :37 3 communicated? 12 :18 :37 4 Q . Who was it who prepared the last page ? 12 :18 :37 4 Q . Just identify the person who communicated the 12 :18 :37 5 A . I believe it was Ralph Otten who prepared the 12 :18 :37 5 request to you . 12 :18 :3 7 6 title slides. 12 :18:37 6 A. Yeah . I'm not going to answer that . 12 :18 :37 7 Q . How did you work with Ralph Otten on these 12 :18 :37 7 MR . EDELMAN : Is it your position that the 12 :18 :37 8 slides? 12 :18 :37 8 identity of the individual is privileged? 12 :18 :37 9 A. We each developed our own set of slides and 12:18 :37 9 MR . BULCHIS : Well, the problem is this : 12 :18 :37 10 later combined them into a single file . 12 :18:37 10 Once you identify the message, that is, what was in the 12 :18 :37 11 Q. Did you meet with Mr . Otten in order to work 12 :18 :37 11 communication, which you have, you said get me these 12:18 :37 12 on these slides in 1996? 12 :18 :37 12 slides, and then you want him to identify the person, 12 :18 :37 13 A. Not to work on the slides, but to combine 12 :18 :37 13 well, now if he identifies It as an attorney he's 12 :18 :37 14 them . 12 :18 :37 14 identified that it's an attorney, he's identified the 12 :18 :37 15 Q . When did Magma make the initial request for 12 :18 :37 15 communication . I mean, that's the difficulty. You've 12 :18 :37 16 you to find these slides? 12 :18 :37 16 approached it by asking what the communication was first 12 :18 :37 17 A. Immediately after we signed the release . 12:18 :37 17 and someone communicated to him to get these slides and 12:18 :37 18 Q. And so that was in February of 2005? 12 :18 :37 18 now it turns out it was an attorney and it's privileged . 12 :18 :3 7 19 A. Yes. 12 :18:37 19 MR . EDELMAN : I just want a position . Are 12 :18 :37 20 Q . And who was it that made that request to you? 12 :18 :37 20 you going to claim that the identification of the person 12:18 :37 21 A. I believe that was George Riley. 12:18:37 21 who made the request is privileged or not? 12 :18 :3 7 22 Q. George Riley personally requested you? 12 :18 :37 22 MR . BULCHIS : I already did . You asked for 12 :18 :37 23 A. No . 12:18 :37 23 an explanation and I was giving it to you . 12:18 :37 24 Q . Who was it who actually communicated the 12 :18 :37 24 MR. EDELMAN: I didn't. I was asking what 12 :18 :37 25 request ? 12 :18 :37 25 your position is . So your instruction to your client is 12 :18 :37 398 400

33 (Pages 397 to 400 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0 -f313-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 not to answer that question? 12 :18 :37 1 already had an agreement with Magma, did Mr. Often feel 12 :18 :37 2 MR. BULCHIS: Based on counsel for Magma's 12 :18:37 2 more comfortable in providing a copy of the slides? 12 :18:3 7 3 representation it was during the period of time that 12 :18 :37 3 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 4 there was a joint defense agreement, yes . 12:18 :37 4 Q . Did Mr . Otten indicate to you what he thought 12 :18 :37 5 Q . Did you work with anybody else in order to 12 :18 :37 5 would be of concern if he provided the slides without 12 :18:37 6 locate a copy of these slides . 12:18 :37 6 you having a suitable agreement with Magma? 12 :18:3 7 7 MR . OBSTLER: Other than an attorney? 12 :18 :37 7 A. I don't think he had a concern about the 12:18 :37 8 A . Work with anybody else? You mean -- I asked 12 :18 :37 8 slides themselves . 12:18 :37 9 Ralph Otten for the slides . 12 :18 :37 9 Q . He had a concern about you assisting Magma? 12 :18 :37 10 Q . Did you pick up the phone and talk to Ralph 12 :18 :37 10 A. He had a concern about me personally. 12 :18 :3 7 11 Otten about the subject? 12 :18 :37 11 Q. Was he concerned about the possibility of 12 :18 :37 12 A . Yes. 12 :18 :37 12 claims by Magma against you? 12:18 :3 7 13 Q. And did Ralph Otten indicate to you that he 12 :18 :37 13 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 14 still had a copy of the slides? 12 :18 :37 14 Q. Have you ever conducted any search on the 12 :18 :37 15 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 15 Internet to try to find a copy of the slides that have 12 :18:37 16 Q . Did Ralph Otten say he had a hard copy of the 12 :18 :37 16 been marked as Exhibit No . 9? 12:18 :37 17 slides or that he could find a copy of the slides on the 12 :18 :37 17 A. No . 12:18:3 7 18 Internet? 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Is it your understanding that someone could 12:18 :37 19 A . He had a soft copy on a backup disk. 12 :18 :37 19 find in the public domain a copy of these slides? 12 :18:37 20 Q . Did you make any other attempt to find the 12 :18 :37 20 A. I don't know . - 12:18 :37 21 slides other than talking to Ralph Otten? 12 :18 :37 21 Q. Do you know of anybody who has access to 12 :18 :37 22 A . No. 12:18 :37 22 these slides? 12 :18 :37 23 Q. How did Ralph Otten send you the slides? 12 :18 :37 23 A. Do I know? 12 :18 :3 7 24 A . I never received the slides . 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Outside of the parties to this litigation 12 :18 :37 25 Q . Who did Ralph Otten send the slides to? 12 :18 :37 25 now, other than Mr. Otten? 12 :18 :37 401 403

1 A. To Magma counsel . 12 :18 :37 1 A. No, I do not . 12 :18:3 7 2 Q . Did you have any other discussion with Mr . 12:18 :37 2 Q. These were the slides that you created for 12 :18:37 3 Otten about the slides other than requesting he provide 12 :18 :37 3 the ICCAD presentation in 1996, correct? 12 :18 :37 4 a copy? 12 :18 :37 4 A. Correct . 12 :18:3 7 5 A . Well, I had to call him a couple of times. 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Was it your intention in crea ting these 12 :18 :37 6 First he wasn't sure he had a copy and he had to look 12 :18 :37 6 slides to describe constant delay inventions that you 12:18 :37 7 for it. Then I had to convince him that he really 12 :18:37 7 had conceived at Synopsys? 12 :18 :3 7 8 should turn them over . 12 :18 :37 8 A. No . 12 :18 :3 7 9 Q . Was Mr. Otten hesitant to turn over the 12 :18 :37 9 Q. What was the intention of creating these 12 :18 :37 10 slides? 12 :18 :37 10 slides? 12 :18 :37 11 A. Yes, he was . 12 :18 :37 11 A. Of which slides? Ralph Otten' s part or my 12:18 :3 7 12 Q . And why was he hesitant? 12 :18 :37 12 part? 12 :18:37 13 A. He was concerned about my position. 12 :18 :37 13 Q. Your part. 12 :18 :3 7 14 Q . Why was his concern about your position 12 :18 :37 14 A. It was to fill the time that was left open in 12 :18:3 7 15 something that led him to be hesitant in giving you a 12 :18 :37 15 the program after the original presentation had been 12:18 :37 16 copy of the slides? 12 :18 :37 16 cancelled . 12 :18 :37 17 A . He wanted to make sure that I had a suitable 12 :18 :37 17 Q. You're referring to the fact that the 12 :18 :37 1S agreement with Magma before he did so . 12 :18 :37 18 original presentation had been cancelled due to concerns 12 :18:37 19 Q. Did you send Mr . Otten a copy of the 12 :18 :37 19 by IBM , correct? 12 :18 :3 7 20 agreement you had with Magma? 12 :18 :37 20 A. Yes . 12 :18 :3 7 21 A . No, I did not. 12 :18 :37 21 Q. And your understanding was that IBM had 12:18 :37 22 Q. Did you tell him that you had already reached 12 :18 :37 22 concerns at least partly because of a concern over 12 :18 :37 23 an agreement with Magma? 12 :18 :37 23 confidentiality of its information , correct? 12 :18 :3 7 24 A . Yes . 12 :18 :37 24 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 25 Q . And so after you told Mr. Otten that you 12 :18 :37 2 5 Q. So was it your attempt in redrafting these 12:18 :37 402 404 1

34 (Pages 401 to 404) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-13f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 slides -- sorry . Was it your concern in drafting your 12 :18 :37 1 on the grounds that it calls for expert testimony, legal 12 :18 :37 2 portion of these slides to only include information that 12:18 :37 2 conclusion, arguably claim construction. 12 :18:37 3 would not implicate any IBM issue? 12 :18 :37 3 Q. I'm sorry, . was there an answer to that? 12 :19:37 4 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 4 A. I don't recall having an opinion on that . 12 :18:37 5 Q. Now, in these slides there is some discussion 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Do you currently have any opinion on that? 12 :18 :37 6 and reference to techniques from the Sutherland paper, 12 :18 :37 6 A. No, not really . 12:18 :3 7 7 correct? 12 :18 :37 7 Q. Are you aware of any tool that implemented 12 :18 :37 8 A. Which page is that? 12 :18 :37 8 any of the inventions in the '114 patent as of the time 12 :18 :37 9 Q . Well, look, for example, at page 517447. 12 :18:37 9 you left Synopsys? 12 :18,3 7 10 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 10 A . Narendra was working on implementing these 12 :18 :37 11 Q . Was it your understanding when these slides 12 :18 :37 11 inventions in code at that time . 12 :18 :37 12 were created that these discussions of issues coming 12 :18 :37 12 Q. At the time that you left Synopsys in 1997, 12 :18:37 13 from the Sutherland paper were not issues that 12 :18 :37 13 had the implementation of the inventions in this patent 12 :18 :37 14 implicated IBM information? 12 :18 :37 14 been completed? 12 :18 :3 7 15 A. I didn't create these slides, and these are 12 :18:37 15 A. Not to my knowledge . 12 :18 :3 7 16 Ralph Otten's slides, and I had no understanding about 12 :18 :37 16 Q. Do you have any information as to whether 12 :18:37 17 them at all at the time they were created . 12 :18 :37 17 that implementation was ever completed? 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Were there slides created by Narendra Shenoy 12 :18 :37 18 A. No. 12 :18 :3 7 19 for this? 12 :18 :37 19 Q. If you could go to claim 1 . Do you see that 12 :18 :37 20 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 20 the second element of claim 1 talks about establishing a 12 :18 :37 21 Q . And what did his slides concern? 12 :18 :37 21 conversions criterion based upon a partition-size? Do 12 :18 :37 22 A. Retiming algorithm . 12 :18 :37 22 you have an understanding as to what that element meant? 12 :18 :37 23 Q . Was that retiming algorithm anything that was 12 :18 :37 23 A . Well, I think so . 12 :18 :3 7 24 described in the '446 or '438 patents? 12 :18 :37 24 Q. What was your understanding? 12 :18 :37 25 A . No. 12 :18 :37 25 A. My understanding is that it means that 12 :18 :37 405 40 7

1 Q. Sorry? 12:18 :37 1 partitions continue to be partitioned until they're 12 :18 :37 2 A. Completely unrelated. 12 :18 :37 2 small enough . 12:18 :37 3 Q . Was it anything disclosed in the '114 patent? 12 :18 :37 3 Q. Small enough for what? 12 :18 :37 4 A. No. 12 :18 :37 4 A. Its not specific about that, is it? 12 :18 :3 7 5 Q . I want to introduce back into evidence the 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Well, can the second element of claim 1 be 12 :18 :37 6 114 patent . I believe that's been previously marked . 12 :18 :37 6 performed if only one act of partition is performed? 12 :18 :37 7 A. Exhibit 24. 12 :18:37 7 A. Matter in claim 2 would sequentially precede 12 :18 :37 8 Q . Did you assign the inventions contained in 12 :18 :37 8 the activities in claim 1, so I think the answer is yes . 12:18 :37 9 the '114 patent to Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 9 Q. What is your understanding of what a 12 :18 :37 10 MR . BULCHIS : I think that may be Exhibit 29 12 :18 :37 10 partition is? 12 :18 :37 11 is what I have . 12 :18 :37 11 A. Partition is a combination of a subset of 12 :18 :37 12 A. I believe I did. 12:18:37 12 cells within the region or area, subregion, of the 12 :18 :37 13 Q. Did Synopsys put any pressure on you to sign 12 :18 :37 13 entire tip. 12 :18 :3 7 .14 the inventions in this patent? 12 :18 :37 14 Q. When you assigned the inventions in the '114 12 :18 :37 15 MR . OBSTLER : Objection to the term pressure . 12 :18 :37 15 patent to Synopsys, did you read through the 12 :18:37 16 A. Not really . 12 :18 :37 16 specification and the claims? 12 :18:37 17 Q . Did you believe at the time that you assigned 12 :18 :37 17 A. I did read it, yes. I read it once . 12:18 :37 18 the inventions in the '114 patent that the inventions in 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Who did you communicate with at Synopsys 12 :18 :37 19 the patent were valid? 12 :18:37 19 concerning the assignment of the inventions in the '114 12 :18 :37 20 A . Were valid in what respect? 12 :18 :37 20 patent? 12 :18 :3 7 21 Q . That they were novel . 12 :18 :37 21 A. I believe that was Narendra Shenoy . 12 :18 :37 22 MR . OBSTLER: Object to that conclusion . 12:18 :37 22 Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Shenoy 12 :18 :37 23 Calls for expert testimony . 12:18 :37 23 about the invention of the '114 patent at the time they 12 :18 :37 24 A . I'm not sure I had an opinion . 12:18 :37 24 were assigned? 12 :18 :3 7 25 MR . OBSTLER: Just a second . Object to that 12 :18 :37 25 A. Possibly, but it would have been brief. 12 :18 :37 406 408

35 (Pages 405 to 408 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q . You were at Magma at the time you were 12 :18 :37 1 can't comment on that . 12 :18 :37 2 assigned the assignment, correct? 12 :18 :37 2 MR . BULCHIS: But the parties do agree that 12 :18 :37 3 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 3 certain portions are going to be bound separately, 12 :18 :3 7 4 Q . Was it Mr. Shenoy who initially informed you 12 :18 :37 4 correct? 12 :18 :37 5 that Synopsys wanted you to assign the assignment? 12 :18 :37 5 MR . EDELMAN : Yes, that's correct . 12 :18 :3 7 6 A. I'm not really sure about that. However, Mr. 12 :18 :37 6 MR . BULCHIS: So the testimony concerning 32 12:18 :37 7 Shenoy once came over to the Magma office to exchange 12 :18 :37 7 will be bound separately from the testimony preceding 12 :18 :3 7 8 documents . 12 :18 :37 8 that and the testimony following it concerning Exhibit 12 :18 :3 7 9 Q. Are you referring to 1997? 12 :18 :37 9 33. 12 :18:3 7 10 A . Yes . 12 :18 :37 10 MR . OBSTLER : Right. And Ed, that is subject 12 :18 :3 7 11 Q. So when he came over to the Magma office he 12 :18 :37 11 to our ability to de-designate and we believe we will be 12:18 :37 12 came over to exchange documents pertaining to the '114 12 :18 :37 12 able to make a decision on that by Friday . So we will 12:18:37 13 patent? 12 :18 :37 13 try to do that, at least from our standpoint on that 12 :18 :3 7 14 A. Yeah . I don't really remember exactly why he 12 :18 :37 14 particular exhibit because you asked me about that . 12 :18:3 7 15 was there, but he either was bringing a copy of the 12 :18 :37 15 Q. I'm handing you a document which has been 12:18 :37 16 draft patent or he was bringing the assignment form or 12 :18 :37 16 marked as Exhibit 34, Dr. van Ginneken, and it consists 12 :18 :3 7 17 getting It or both . 12 :18 :37 17 of a chart containing language from a Synopsys draft 12 :18 :3 7 18 Q . When you reviewed the '1 14 patent 12:18 :37 18 patent application on the left, and portions of the 12 :18 :37 19 specification claims, at the time you assigned it, was 12 :18 :37 19 specification of the '446 patent on the right . 12 :18 :3 7 20 that the first time you had reviewed either the 12 :18 :37 20 First I would ask you to review the document 12 :18 :37 21 specificational claims? 12 :18 :37 21 that's been marked as Exhibit 34 and tell me whether you 12 :18 :37 22 A . Yes . 12:18 :37 22 have seen it before? 12 :18 :3 7 23 Q. Were you aware before that point that 12 :18 :37 23 A. Yes, I've seen this before . 12 :18 :3 7 24 Synopsys was prosecuting a patent for these inventions? 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Have you reviewed each page of this chart 12 :18 :3 7 25 A . No . 12 :18 :37 25 previously? 12:18 :37 409 41 1

1 Q. When you read the specifics at the time you 12 :18 :37 1 A. Not each and every page, no . .12 :18 :37 2 assigned it, did you feel like you understood the 12 :18 :37 2 Q. How did you get a copy of this chart? 12 :18 :37 3 inventions that were being claimed? 12 :18 :37 3 A. I believe I saw a copy in a meeting with 12 :18 :3 7 4 A. I think so . 12:18 :37 4 Magma counsel . 12:18 :3 7 5 MR . EDELMAN : Take a break for a few seconds. 12 :18:37 5 Q. Have you been given an opportunity previous 12 :18 :37 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 12 :18:37 6 to today to review the chart in detail? 12 :18 :37 7 time is approximately 4 :46 p.m . 12:18:37 7 A. I had an opportunity in that meeting . 12 :18 :37 8 (Recess .) 12 :18 :37 8 Q. Did you review the chart in some detail at 12 :18 :37 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 12:18 :37 9 that time? 12 :18 :37 10 The time now is approximately 4 :59 p.m . 12 :18:37 10 A. In some detail . 12 :18 :37 11 MR . EDELMAN : I'd like to mark as Exhibit 34 12 :18:37 11 Q . Now, I understand it is your testimony that 12 :18 :37 12 a several-page chart related to the Synopsys draft 12 :18 :37 12 you did not have any Synopsys draft patent application 12 :18 :37 13 application on the '446 patent. 12:18 :37 13 in front of you when you drafted the specification for 12 :18 :37 14 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 34 .) 12 :18 :37 14 the '446 patent; is that correct? 12 :18 :37 i5 MR . BULCHIS : Oh, and just to make the record 12 :18:37 15 MR . BULCHIS : I object to the form of the 12 :18 :37 16 clear, my understanding based on Magma's claim of 12 :18 :37 16 question assuming that it was this witness who drafted 12 :18 :37 17 confidentiality, Exhibit 32 is going to be bound with 12 :18 :37 17 the application -- I mean drafted the declaration . 12 :18 :37 18 those other confidential documents as ordered by the 12 :18 :37 18 A. That's correct . 12 :18 :37 19 magistrate and -- 12 :18 :37 19 Q. You were the person who created the initial 12 :18 :37 20 MR . OBSTLER : Yes . Subject -- 12 :18 :37 20 specification for the '446 and '438 patent, correct? 12 :18 :37 21 MR. BULCHIS: And the testimony after Exhibit 12 :18 :37 21 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 22 32 we are not considering confidential and it's not 12 :18 :37 22 MR . BULCHIS : I'm sorry, was your question 12 :18 :37 23 going to be bound separately . Is that -- 12 :18 :37 23 regarding the declaration or the application? 12 :18 :37 24 MR. EDELMAN : Well, the parties are in a 12:18 :37 24 MR. EDELMAN : The application . 12:18 :37 25 disagreement over how to designate the transcript, so 1 12 :18 :37 2 5 MR. BULCHIS : I'm sorry, I misheard . 12 :18 :37 410 412

36 (Pages 409 to 412) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 A. Well, certainly the '446 . I'm not sure, you 12 :18 :37 1 A. Well, it increased over the period of '97. 12:18 :37 2 know, to the extent the '438 was based on the '446 . 12 :18 :37 2 By the end of that year, let me think. About 12 . 12 :18:37 3 Q. When you provided the initial draft of the 12 :18 :37 3 Q. By the summer of 1998 how many employees of 12 :18 :37 4 specification for the first Magma patent application to 12 :18 :37 4 Magma were there? 12 :18 :37 5 Pillsbury, was it substantially complete? 12 :18 :37 5 A. 1998? 12 :18 :37 6 A. It was fairly complete . 12 :18 :37 6 Q. Uh-huh . 12 :18 :3 7 7 Q. When did you begin drafting that 12 :18 :37 7 A. Between 30 and 40. 12 :18 :37 8 specification? 12 :18 :37 8 Q. Did Magma have any sort of policy in 1997 or 12 :18 :37 9 A. I believe I began on that sometime in 12 :18 :37 9 1998 about the retention or destruction of electronic 12 :18:37 10 October . 12:18:37 10 documents? 12 :18 :37 11 Q. And how long did it take you to draft it? 12 :18 :37 11 A. Not that I'm aware of, 12 :18:37 12 A. I don't recall exactly. Probably two weeks 12 :18 :37 12 Q. Are you aware of any time that you worked at 12 :18:3 7 13 or something like that . 12:18 :37 13 Magma of Magma having a policy concerning the retention 12 :18 :3 7 14 Q. And you drafted the, application on your 12 :18 :37 14 or destruction of electronic documents? 12 :18 :3 7 15 computer at Magma, correct? 12 :18 :37 15 A. No . 12:18 :37 16 A. Yes. 12 :18:37 16 Q . Are you aware that Magma was involved in the 12 :18 :37 17 Q . Did any of the drafting of the application 12 :18 :37 17 litigation with a company called Prolific? 12 :18 :37 18 occur on your home computer? 12 :18 :37 18 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 19 A. No. 12:18 :37 19 Q. In conjunction with the litigation with 12 :18 :37 20 Q. What computer did you have at Magma in 1997? 12 :18 :37 20 Prolific, are you aware of any steps that Magma took in 12 :18 :3 7 21 A. I had a PC . 12 :18:37 21 order to preserve electronic documents? 12 :18 :3 7 22 Q. Do you recall the hard drive capacity? 12 :18 :37 22 A. Yes. 12 :18 :3 7 23 A. No. 12 :18 :37 23 Q. What steps did Magma take at that time? 12 :18 :3 7 24 Q . How long did you have a computer at Magma 12 :18:37 24 A. Well, I don't recall exactly all the things 12 :18:37 25 that you worked on in 1997? 12 :18 :37 25 they did, but they notified people that they should not 12 :18 :3 7 413 415 ,

1 A. Not that long . 12:18 :37 1 destroy any documents, They asked us to produce 12 :18 :3 7 2 Q . When did you replace that computer with 12 :18:37 2 relevant documents such as E-mails. I don't know . I 12 :18:3 7 3 another computer? 12 :18 :37 3 think that's all I remember so far. 12 :18 :3 7 4 A. Sometime in '98 . 12:18 :37 4 Q. Do you recall when that litigation commenced? 12 :18:3 7 5 Q . And why did you replace the computer in 1998? 12 :18 :37 5 A. That was 2001, or was it 2000? 12 :18 :37 6 A. Because it had insufficient capacity to run 12 :18 :37 6 Q. At that time you had already replaced the 12 :18 :3 7 7 compilers and tools . 12 :18 :37 7 computer that you worked on in 1997, correct? 12 :18 :3 7 8 Q. Do you remember when in 1998 you replaced the 12 :18 :37 8 A. Yeah . Probably more than once . 12 :18 :37 9 computer? 12 :18:37 9 Q . How many times did you replace your computer? 12 :18:3 7 10 A. I don't recall exactly, but I think it was in 12 :18 :37 10 MR . OBSTLER : Objection to the form of the 12 :18 :3 7 11 the summer . 12:18 :37 11 question . I thought he testified that Magma replaced 12 :18 :37 12 Q. Who did you communicate with at Magma about 12 :18:37 12 the computer. He didn't replace the computer . 12 :18 :3 7 13 the fact that you needed to replace your computer? 12 :18 :37 13 MR. EDELMAN : Oh, okay. 12:18 :37 14 A. All computers were, or a lot of computers 12 :18 :37 14 Q . How many times was your computer replaced at 12 :18 :37 15 were upgraded around that time . 12 :18 :37 15 Magma? 12 :18 :3 7 16 Q. Did you make it your own personal request to 12 :18 :37 16 A. I think at least twice . 12:18:3 7 17 have your computer replaced? 12 :18 :37 17 Q. When was your computer replaced a second time 12 :18 :37 18 A. No. 12:18 :37 18 at Magma? 12 :18 :3 7 19 Q . So this is part of a more standard upgrade of 12 :18:37 19 A. I don't recall exactly, but probably maybe 12 :18 :37 20 computers that was happening at Magma? 12 :18 :37 20 '99 or so, '98 or 2000 . 12:18:37 . 21 A . Yes. 12 :18 :37 21 Q . Do you know what Magma did with the computer 12:18 :37 .r Q. How many employees of Magma were there in 12 :18:37 22 that was replaced for you in 1998? 12 :18 :37 23 1997? 12 :18 :37 23 A. No, no idea . 12:18 :37 24 A. In '97? 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Was the entire computer replaced? 12 :18 :37 25 Q. Yes . 12 :18 :37 25 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 414 416 l., 37 (Pages 413 to 416 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d 33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q. And what did you do to transfer documents 12 :18 :37 1 Jakopin the first draft of the patent on the 12 :18:37 2 from your old computer to your new computer when your 12 :18:37 2 specification? 12:18 :3 7 3 computer was replaced ? 12 :18 :37 3 A. I don't recall exactly, but probably a couple 12 :18 :37 4 A . I think I copied some directories from one 12 :18 :37 4 of weeks. 12 :18 :37 5 computer to the other . 12 :18 :37 5 Q. When you had this initial discussion with Mr. 12:18 :37 6 Q. Did you make an a ttempt to copy all the 12 :18 :37 6 Jakopin, did you have any discussion with him over prior 12 :18 :37 7 documents that yop had on the computer you worked on in 12 :18:37 7 art? 12 :18 :37 8 1997 to your new computer? 12 :18:37 8 A. Yes, I believe so . 12:18 :37 9 A . I don 't recall exactly how I copied documents 12 :18 :37 9 Q. And what did you discuss with Mr. Jakopin on 12 :18 :37 10 or how much . 12 :18 :37 1 0 that subject? 12 :18 :37 11 Q. Was the file that you created on your 12 :18 :37 11 A. Discussed variations of the papers, like 12 :18 :37 12 computer containing the speci fication for the first 12 :18 :37 12 Sutherland's paper and Grodstein and Lehman's paper, 12 :18 :37 13 draft patent one of the files that you had copied from 12: 18 :37 13 possibly also some other prior art, like Mead and 12 :18 :37 14 your 1997 computer to your 1998 computer ? 12 :18:37 14 Conway. 12 :18 :37 15 A . I don't remember that. 12 :18 :37 1 5 Q. Why did you discuss prior art with Mr. 12 :18 :37 16 Q. As of the time that you left Magma, did you 12 :18:37 16 Jakopin? 12:18 :37 17 still have in your possession a copy of the electronic 12:18:37 17 A. I always discuss prior art. 12 :18 :37 18 file containing the specification that you drafted in 12 :18 :37 18 Q . Well, was there a concern discussed between 12 :18 :37 19 1997? 12 :18 :37 19 you and Mr . Jakopin over the need to distinguish prior 12 :18 :37 20 A. Possibly , but I don't know. 12 :18:37 20 art in your draft specification? 12 :18 :37 . 21 Q . Who at Pillsbu ry did you work with to 12 : 18 :37 2 1 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 22 prosecute the patent that was filed in 1997 for Magma? 12 : 18 :37 22 Q . And do you feel like that was something that 12 :18 :37 123 A. David 3akopln . 12 :18 :37 23 you ended up including in your draft specification? 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Anybody else at Pillsbu ry? 12:18:37 24 A. I think so . 12 :18 :37 25 A. No. 12:18 :37 25 Q. Yesterday you testified on some documents 12 :18 :37 41 7 419

1 Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr . Jakopin 12 :18 :37 1 that you utilized to draft the specification . Did you 12:18 :37 2 about the nature of the invention? 12 :18 :37 2 utilize the 1996 paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side" 12 :18 :37 3 A . Yes . 12 :18 :37 3 in order to draft the specification? 12 :18 :37 4 Q . Did you ever talk to Mr . Jakopin about the 12 :18:37 4 A . I did not have a copy of that. 12 :18 :37 5 origin of the inventions? 12 :18:37 5 Q. Your answer is no? 12 :18 :37 6 A . No . 12 :18 :37 6 A . "No ." 12 :18 :37 7 Q . Did Mr . 3akopin or anybody else at Pillsbury 12 :18:37 7 Q. Did you utilize the white paper entitled 12 :18 :37 8 ever ask you what the origin of the inventions was? 12 :18 :37 8 "Constant Delay Methodology" that had you and Mr . Kudva 12 :18 :37 9 . A . I don't recall . 12 :18 :37 9 as co-authors? 12 :18 :37 10 Q. Did anybody at Pillsbury ever give you any 12 :18 :37 10 A. No . 12 :18 :37 11 sort of invention disclosure form to fill out to provide 12 :18 :37 11 Q . Did you utilize any documentation that you 12 :18 :37 12 details on the nature of your invention? 12 :18 :37 12 had created at Synopsys relating to constant delay? 12:18 :37 13 A. Not that I recall. 12 :18:37 13 A. No, 12 :18:3 7 14 Q . When Is the first time you recall having a 12 :18 :37 14 Q . Did you utilize any variation of the 1996 12 :18 :37 15 communication with Mr . Jakopin about prosecution of the 12 :18 :37 15 paper or any draft of the 1996 paper called "Driving on 12 :18 :37 16 patent? 12 :18 :37 16 the Left-hand Side"? 12 :18 :3 7 17 A. Well, I think there was a meeting with him 12 :18:37 17 A. No . 12 :18 :37 18 where he came to the office and I did some white 12 :18 :37 18 MR. OBSILER : Objection to the term 12:18 :37 19 boarding of the ideas, and decided after that that I 12 :18 :37 19 "variation." Vague and ambiguous. 12 :18 :37 20 would draft a -- make first draft. 12 :18 :37 20 Q. Do you agree that there is similarity in 12 :18 :3 7 21 Q. And were the ideas that you white boarded 12 :18 :37 21 language between portions of the Synopsys draft patent 12 :18:37 22 with Mr. Jakopin in this initial meeting Ideas that you 12 :18:37 22 application and the specification of the '446 patent? 12 :18:37 23 had conceived of at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 23 MR . OBSTLER: Object to the term "similarity 12 :18:37 24 A . Yeah . I think you can say that. 12 :18 :37 24 in language," vague and ambiguous. 12 :18 :37 25 Q. How soon after that meeting did you get Mr . 12 :18 :37 2 5 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 418 420

38 (Pages 417 to 420) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f313-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 1 Q. And can you please state for the record what 12 :18 :37 1 CERTIFICAT E 2 your explanation is for the similarities in language? 12 :18 :37 2 3 A. I wrote both of the applications. I was 12 :18 :37 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 4 trying to express the same thoughts. 12 :18 :37 4 ) ss. 5 Q. So you drafted the Synopsys application in 12 :18 :37 5 COUNTY OF KING ) 6 roughly the middle of 1996, correct? 12 :18 :37 6 7 A. Yes. 12 :18 :3 7 7 I, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the 8 Q. So it had been more than a year since you had 12 :18 :37 8 State of Washington, do hereby certify : 9 finished creating that draft, correct? 12 :18 :37 9 That the annexed and foregoing deposition of each 10 A. A little bit more, yeah . 12 :18 :3 7 10 witness named herein was taken stenographically before 11 Q. And its your testimony that there's a 12 :18 :37 11 me and reduced to typewriting under my direction ; 12 similarity in language between the two drafts you 12 :18:37 12 I further certify that the deposition was 13 created more than one year apart because you simply 12 :18 :37 13 submitted to each said witness for examination, reading 14 happened to be drafting the same ideas? 12 :18 :3 7 14 and signature after the same was transcribed, unless 15 A. Yes. 12 :18 :3 7 15 indicated in the record that the parties and each 16 MR . EDELMAN : Go off the record for 12:18 :37 16 witness waive the signing ; 17 approximately two seconds. 12 :18 :37 17 I further certify that all objections made at the 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record. The 12 :18 :37 18 time of said examination to my qualifications or the 19 time is approximately 5 :16 p.m. 12 :18:37 19 manner of taking the deposition, or to the conduct of 20 (Recess .) 12 :18 :37 20 any party, have been noted by me upon said deposition ; 21 21 I further certify that I am not a relative or 22 (Pages 422-443 are Confidential and bound separately .) 22 employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties to 23 23 said action, or a relative or employee of any such 24 24 attorney or counsel ; 25 25 I further testify that I am_ not in any way 421 44 5

1 AFFIDAVI T 1 financially interested in the said action .or the outcome 2 2 thereof; 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 3 I further certify that each witness before 4 ) ss. 4 examination was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, 5 COUNTY OF KING ) 5 the whole truth and nothing but the truth ; 6 6 I further certify that the deposition, as 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that I have 7 transcribed, is a full, true and correct transcript o f 8 read my within deposition, and the same is true and 8 the testimony, including questions and answers, and all 9 accurate, save and except for changes and/o r 9 objections, motions, and exceptions of counsel made and 10 corrections, if any, as indicated by me on the 10 taken at the time of the foregoing examination . 11 correction sheet hereof. 11 12 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 13 13 hand and affixed my official seal this day of 14 14 .2005. 15 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 CHERYL MACDONALD 19 19 License No . 2498 20 20 Notary Public in and for 21 Dated this day of . 2005. 21 the State of Washington, 22 22 residing at Seattle . 23 23 24 24 25 25 444 446

39 (Pages 421 to 446 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-530 0 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 I MOBURG & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS 2 1601 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 860 SEATTLE, WA 98101 3 206-622-3110 4 PLEASE MAKE ALL CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS ON THIS SHEET, 5 SHOWING PAGE, LINE, AND REASON, IF ANY . SIGN THIS SHEET, SIGN THE ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE SHEET AND RETURN _6 AS PER INSTRUCTIONS IN COVER LETTER . 7 PAGE LINE CORRECTION AND REASON 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 (SIGNATURE) 20 21 22 SEE WA . REPORTS 34A, RULE 30(E) 23 USCA 28, RULE 30(E) 24 25 REPORTER : CHERYL MACDONALD 447

40 (Page 447) EASTWOO©-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 02c92ad0-f3f3-4151-8d33-aa30b20e3544 CONFIDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISC O

SYNOPSIS,_ INC ., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff ,

-vs- C04-03923 MM C

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC ., a Delaware corporation, and LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN ,

Defendants . ------Videotaped Deposition Upon Oral Examinatio n

of

LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN` ; PhD-, VOLUME II

CONFIDENq SESSIONS PAGES 330-33, 350 393 AND 422-443 ------9 . a .m .

April 27, 2005

1420 Fifth Avenue

Seattle, Washington

SN

CHERYL MACDONALD, RMR, CRR COURT REPORTER

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b05bd8e0-251 c-43c3-beOl -f2b2d7f465ea A1.1 1 of confidential session .) 12 :18 :37 2 B1(ga♦!3 EbtU4AN : : 12 :18 :37 Q.want you to took at Exhibit No . 22 . 12 :18 :37 M1 .:. OBSTLER : J ust for th e record , Michael, 12 :18 :37 {, 5 itsys is one of the exhibits that you marked 12 :18:37 cor al, so this portion of the testimony relating 12 :18:37 7wthis exhibit shall be designated as confidential 12 :18 :37 8 under seal. 12:18 :37 9 MR. EDELMAN : Right . I lost that battle so 1 12 :18 :37 10 might as well ask questions on it. 12 :18:37 11 MR. BULCHIS : We would keep it con fidential 12 :18 :37 12 under Dr . van Ginneken's obligation to Synopsys. 12 :18 :37 13 Q. Is the document marked as Exhibit 22 a true 12 :18:37 14 and correct copy of a document that you authored while 12 :18:37 15 you were at Synopsys? 12 :18:37 16 A . I believe so . 12 :18:3 7 17 Q . When did you author this document? 12 :18:37 18 A . Given that its third quarter objectives, I 12:18:37 19 believe that I authored this around the end of March or 12 :18 :37 20 the beginning of April. 12 :18:37 21 Q. Do you believe you authored this before you 12 :18 :37 22 initially met with IBM or after? 12 :18 :37 23 A . After . 12 :18:37 24 Q. Was this a document that you authored at your 12 :18 :37 25 computer at Synopsys ? 12 :18:37 350 i

)OSITION MANAGEMENT 19-5300 bO5bd8eO-251c-43c3-beO1-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 A, Probably, yes. 12:1837 1 Q. So when you went in your file drawers to look 12 :18:37 2 Q, was this a document that was also in your 12 :18 :37 2 at things you thought you could keep, did you think that 12 :18:3 7 3 personnel file at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 3 the document marked as Exhibit 22 was something that you 12 :18 :3 7 4 A. In my personnel file? 12 :18 :37 4 could keep? 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Yes. 12 :18:37 5 A. I don't recall taking this document. It was 12 :18 :37 6 A. I don't know. I believe I gave this to my 12 :18 :37 6 in my files, I admit that, and so I can't comment on 12 :18 :37 7 manager . 12 :18 :37 7 what 1 was thinking . 12 :18 :37 8 Q. And what manager do you believe-you gave this 12 :18 :37 8 Q. When you created the draft patent 12 :18 :3 7 9 to? 12 :18 :37 9 applications in 1996, did you print out a copy of those 12 :18 :37 10 A. George Swan . 12:18 :37 10 for your files? 12 :18 :37 11 Q. As of the time that you left Synopsys in 12 :18 :37 11 A. Probably did. 12 :18:37 12 1997, had this document stayed confidential at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 12 Q. And what files did you keep them in? 12 :18 :3 7 13 A. Can you explain the question? 12 :18 :37 13 A. Hanging folders in the drawers. 12 :18 :3 7 14 Q. Well, had this document been given to anybody 12 :18 :37 14 Q. Were they in the same file drawers in which 12 :18 :37 15 outside of Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 15 you kept the articles? 4 12 :18 :37 16 A. No. 12:18 :37 16 A. Probably . 12 :1847 17 MR . OBSTLER : Well, I want to object . 1 12 :18 :37 17 Q. And so when you went rough those drawers to 12 :18 :3 7 V 18 don't think there's any foundation, and I don't think we 12 :18 :37 18 determine what you could keep. waa e ent` 12 :18:37 19 can establish this witness knows that . You're asking if 12 :18:37 19 applications in those dia% ers atthat me? 12 :18 :37 20 this witness gave it to anybody? 12 :18 :37 20 A. Probably . 12 :18 :37 21 MR. EDELMAN ; He-knows what he knows . 12:18 :37 21 Q . Do ypu recall rnak rng .a derision on whether or 12 :18 :37 22 A. No . 12 :18:37 22 not you cot3l take the patent applications with you? 12 :18:37 23 Q. You never gave it to anybody outside of 12 :18 :37 23 A. 12 :18 :37 24 Synopsys, correct? 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Arid YOU decide at you could . not take them 12 :18:3 7 25 A. No. 12:18 :37 25 of j€qv? 12 :18 :3 7 351 353

1 Q . When you left Synopsys did you take this 12 :18:37 I A ;That's right. 12 :18 :37 2 document? 12 :18 :37 You're saying that this document ended up in 12 :18 :37 3 A. Apparently I did . 12 :18 :37 3 Magma's files, but you're sure that the patent 12 :18:37 4 Q . And how is it that you took this document? 12 :18 :37 4 applications did not, is that your testimony? 12 :18:37 5 Can you describe how that happened? 12 :18 ;37 5 A. Yes. 12:18:37 6 A. I think it was in my yriles y atpsy S no , sa8 I 38:37 6 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that this 12 :18 :3 7 7 took some of these files with me. 12 :18 . 7 document was not maintained as confidential as of the 12 :18 :3 7 B Q. What files did you have at Synops.that` 12 :18 :37 8 time you left Synopsys? 12 :18 :3 7 9 did you take with you? 12 :18 :37 9 A. No. 12 :18 :37 10 A. Well, generally these w re prints aperss'?, 12 :18 :37 10 Q . Before you signed the declaration on March 12 :18 :37 11 from proceedings, books, thing. e' 12 :18 :37 11 20th of 2005, did you inform Synopsys that there was a 12 :18 :3 7 12 Q. How, generally, di li kee our files at 12 :18 :37 12 document that you had taken from Synopsys files? 12 :18:37 13 Synopsys? Did you have a file hic : u kept papers 12 :18 :37 13 A. Did I inform Synopsys, no, I don't believe I 12 :18:37 14 and articles? £ 12 :18 :37 14 did. 12 :18 :3 7 15 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 15 Q . Did you inform Synopsys that the document 12 :18:37 16 Q . Did youiave a boglc at Synopsys in which 12 :18 :37 16 marked as Exhibit No. 22 had been taken from Synopsys to 12 :18 :37 17 you kept - strike that . 12 :18:37 17 Magma? 12 :18 :3 7 18 How many different files did you have 12 :18 :37 18 A. No . 12:18 :3 7 19 containing ~.~. artid_ . _nd:lmilar types of ... 12 :18:37 19 . Is that nono ?. Q 12:18 :37 20 A . I believe I had like one or two file drawers. 12 :18 :37 20 A. "No." 12 :18 :37 21 Q. And of those one or two file drawers, how 12 :18:37 21 Q. Where did you put the documents that you took 12 :18:3 7 22 many files did you take with you to Magma? 12 :18 :37 22 from the Synopsys file drawers in your office at Magma? 12 :18 :37 23 A. How many files? When I left I went over the 12 :18 :37 23 A. Where did I put them? 12 :18:37 24 materials in the drawers and pulled out those things 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Yes. 12 :18 :3 7 25 that I believed I could keep and put them in a box . 12 :18 :37 25 A. I think I put them in my desk . 12:18:37 352 354

3 (Pages 351 to 354 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 b05bd8eO-251c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 Q. How much space did they occupy in your desk ? 12:18:37 1 were, in any case, in a proceedings which I took with 12 :18:37 2 Was it still a couple of file drawers worth ? 12:18:37 2 me, a book from the ICCAD proceedings. 12:18:37 3 A . There was one file drawer in my desk . 12:18:37 3 Q . Was that book also within the same file 12 :18:37 4 Q. And during the time you worked at Magma , did 12 :18:37 4 drawers ? 12 :18:37 5 you discard any of the information in that desk ? 12:18:37 5 A . It was a bookcase . 12 :18:37 6 A . No . 12 :1 8:37 6 Q. Do you remember yesterday you testi fied on a 12 :18:3 7 7 Q. At the time you left Magma , was alt -the 12 :18:37 7 series of different a rticles that you used to draft the 12 :18:37 8 information that you had brought over from Synopsys 12 :18:37 8 patent applications for Magma ? 12 :18 :37 9 still si tting in your desk? 12 :18:37 9 A. Yes. 12 :18:37 10 A . At the time I left Magma I emptied the 12 :18 :37 10 Q . Were all the articles that you referenced 12 :18 :37 11 contents of my desk into a number of file boxes which I 12 :18:37 11 contained in your file drawers at Synopsys? 12 :18:37 12 left at Magma . 12:18 :37 12 A. I think many of them were. There was also 12 :18:37 13 Q. Where did you leave them at Magma? 12 :18:37 13 the binder, the spiral-bound handout from Ivan 12 :18:37 14 A. I believe I left them with Beth Roemer . 12 :18:37 14 Sutherland which I got later, and then, you know, as I 12 :18 :37 15 Q. You left them in Beth Roemer 's office? 12 :18:37 15 said, some of the a rticles were in some of the 12 :18 :37 16 A . Yeah, or in front of her office , yes . 12:18:37 16 proceedings books that I brought with me . 32 :18 :37 . 17 Q. Did you have an understanding as to what was 12 :18:37 17 Q . When you left Synopsys did you talj€`" "Z 1B 37 ' 18 going to happen to those documents ? 12:18:37 18 anyone at Synopsys about the fact that you were in , 2:18:37 19 A . No. 12 :18:37 19 take these documents with you ? 12 :1 :3 7 20 Q. Why did you decide to leave those documents 12:18 :37 20 A . No . 12:18:3 7 21 at Magma? 12 :18:37 21 Q . Did you have an exit ihtervieav befc ou'~ 12 :18:37 22 A . Because I didn't have a need for them . 12:18 :37 22 resigned from Synopsys? 12:18 :37 23 Q. Why did you leave Magma ? 12 :18:37 23 A . Yes. 12:18:37 24 A . The work didn't appeal to me any more in the 12 :18:37 24 Q. And did you discus gat the time of your exit 12 :18 :37 25 position I was in . 12:18:37 25 interview the dotJbia 9 ou'd be taking from 12 :18:37 355 357

1 Q Did you believe It was possible that you 12 : 18 :37 1 Synopsys? 12 :18:37 2 might in the future obtain a job in an EDA company ? 12:18:37 2 A .I don't recut. 12 :18:37 3 A . Yes . 12 :18 :37 1 . Q. Leo you all whether you signed an exit 12 :18:37 4 Q. Why did you think that none of the articles 12 :18 :37 interview form ? 12 :18:3 7 5 that you had preserved over the previous seven years 12 :18:37 5 A. No, I don't recall that. 12 :18:37 6 would be helpful to you if you took a future job at the 12 :18:37 Q _ . Do you understand today whether or not the 12 : 18 :37 a 7 EDA company? 12:18 :37 7 documents that you took from Synopsys to Magma are still 12 :18:37 8 A . I don't know. 12 :18 :37 <, . 8 located in Magma 's files somewhere? 12 :18:37 9 Q. Can you describe a little bit more 12:18. 9 A . I believe that some of them are, yeah. 12 :18:37 10 specifically what was in these documents that you took 12 . 37 , 10 Q . And why do you believe that some of them are? 12:18 :37 11 from Synopsys to Magma? Do you remember the :18 :37 11 A . Because I left them in those boxes, and some 12 :18:37 t 12 particular documents or a rticles? 12 ; 7 12 of them have been produced . 12:18:37 13 A . Yeah . The articles like Mike Ber in's 2: 13 Q . Your understanding is some of the documents 12 :18:37 14 channel router. A lot of these are from a '80s, 12 :1837 14 that were contained in the boxes that you left have been 12 :18:37 15 things I studied as a grad student or things ] dug up 12 : 18:37 15 produced ? 12 :18:37 16 IBM, stuff like that. 16 A. Yes, like this one . 12 :18:3 7 17 . Q. Was the Sutherland rticie In the tiles that 12 :18 :37 17 Q . When you say "this one" what are you 12 :18:37 18 you took from Synopsys to grna? 12 : 18 :37 18 referring to? 12:18:3 7 19 A . Probably , yes. 12:18:37 19 A. Third quarter pages, Exhibit 22 . 12:18:37 20 Q. Was the Grodsteln article in the files that 12 :18 :37 20 Q . Have you ever discussed with Magma the 12 :18:37 21 you took from Synopsys to Magma? 12 : 18:37 21 content of the documents -- strike that. 12 :18:37 22 A . Probably, yes . 12 :18 :37 22 Have you ever discussed with Magma the taking 12 :18 :3 7 23 Q. Was the Lehman article in the files you took 12 :18:37 23 of the files from Synopsys to Magma? 12:18 :37 24 from Synopsys to Magma ? 12:18:37 24 MR . OBSTLER : I would object to the extent 12 :18:37 25 A . Well, I don't remember for sure , but these 12 :18:37 25 that any discussions took place during the joint defense 12 :18:3 7 356 358

4 (Pages 355 to 358) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b05bdBe0-251 c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 period and were done in the presence of lawyers or 12 :18:37 1 agree that that's designated confidential . 12:18:37 2 through lawyers . 12:18 :37 2 MR . EDELMAN : I'm sorry, I thought that this 12 :18 :3 7 3 A. You mean before or after the lawsuit? 12 :18 :37 3 entire transcript was designated . 12:18 :37 4 Q . Let's put it up that way . Before the 12 :18 :37 4 MR . BULCHIS : I'm not sure we would consider 12 :18 :37 5 lawsuit, did you ever have any discussions with Magma 12 :18 :37 5 this confidential under our obligations to Magma . This 12 :18 :3 7 6 about the fact that you had taken documents from files 12 :18 :37 6 is a contract with Magma . Do you really consider this 12 :18:3 7 7 that you had maintained at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 7 to be a Magma confidential document? 12 :18 :37 8 A, No. 12:18 :37 - 8 MR . OBSTLER : Well, mark it this way, because 12 :18 :37 9 Q . After the lawsuit was filed, did you .ever 12:18 :37 9 it's marked that way, and I will talk -- I mean, is 12 :18 :3 7 10 have any discussion about the taking of files or 12 :18 :37 10 there another version of this document that is not 12 :18 :37 11 documents from your files at Synopsys? 12 :18:37 11 marked confidential someplace? Is there? Do we know? 12 :18 :37 12 A. We had discussions about some of the 12:18 :37 12 MR. EDELMAN : That's not marked confidential? 12 :18 :3 7 13 documents that were found in the boxes, yes. 12 :18 :37 13 MR . OBSTLER : Yeah. 12 :18 :3 7 14 Q. Did you have any discussion with Magma about 12 :18:37 14 MR. EDELMAN : I honestly don't know . All I 12 :18 :37 15 the taking of the Synopsys documents themselves? 12 :18 :37 15 know is what's in front of me herert"., 12 :18:3 7 16 MR . OBSTLER: Again, I want to object to this 12 :18:37 16 MR . BULCHIS: As counsel forte witnesO 12 :18 :37 17 to the extent that those discussions were had in the 12 :18 :37 17 would ask that Magma de•desnate this as confidential . 12;18 :37 18 context of legal proceedings where he was either being 12 :18 :37 18 MR. OBSTLER: Ed, I will take: ye request 12;18 :3 7 19 represented by O'Melveny or when a joint defense 12 :18:37 19 back to my client, ano I will try to get that resolved 12 :18 :37 20 agreement was in place, and I would ask counsel for the 12 :18 :37 20 quickly, but until that let' 12 :18 ;37 21 witness to instruct him not to answer that unless he's 12 :18 :37 21 MR . E{ ELMAN . There's another point we raise, 12 :18 :3 7 22 prepared to waive those privilege . 12:18 :37 22 and I guess we should clarify this, because maybe the 12 :18:3 7 23 MR . BULCHIS : I think the objection is well 12 :18 :37 23 parties°am under a different understanding . Is it your 12 :18:3 7 24 founded, and I will instruct you not to answer, You may 12 :18:37 24 understanding that only` certain portions of the 12 :18 :3 7 25 answer as to anything that's not covered by the joint 12 :18:37 25 trahscrt tnow are being designated or that the entire 12:18 :3 7 359 - 36 1 i~-

1 defense agreement or communications with counsel . 12 :18:31-' 1 transcript is? 12 :18 :37 2 A . Then I can't answer . 12 :18 .37 MR . OBSTLER : Only certain portions. 12 :18 :37 3 Q . Do you have an understanding as to whether 12118 37 3 MR . BULCHIS : Absolutely. That's what the 12 ;18 :37 4 all of the documents that you took from your Synopsys 12:18 :37 -4 magistrate -- 12 :18 :37 5 files to Magma are still in Magma's possession? .°:•-12 :18 :37 5 MR. OBSTLER: That's what the judge ruled 12 :18:3 7 6 A. All of the documents that I took from Magma t' 12 :18 37 " 6 yesterday . 12:18 :37 7 are still in Magma's -- with me from leaving,Synopsys JAB : 37 7 MR. EDELMAN : How I heard the judge rule had 12 :18:3 7 8 are still in Magma's possession? 12 :18:37 8 to do with exhibits but not with the designation of 12 :18 :37 9 Q. Yes. , 12 :18:37 9 transcripts . 12 :18 :37 10 A. No. I mean - 12: 8;37 10 MR . OBSTLER : No . He said -- and I'll read 12:18 :3 7 11 Q . Do you know whether o& of MaQ estroyed 12 :18 :37 11 you the provision . He says : 12:18 :37 12 any of the documents in those boxes after you left the 12 :18 :37 12 "CLERK : Excellent. I spoke with the judge 12 :18 :37 13 company? 12 :18:37 13 briefly about the issue, and he just wants me to reflect 12 :18 :37 14 A. No, I have no knowledge of that . 12 :18 :37 14 to everyone there that his thought on it is that we 12 :18 :37 15 MR . EDELMAN :- "I'd like to mark as Exhibit 32 12 :18:37 15 should go ahead and complete the deposition, show Dr. 12:18 :37 16 a document Bates stamped t o 1015 . 12 :18:37 16 van Ginneken or allow Dr. van Ginneken to testify 12 :18 :37 17 (M rked Deposition Exhibit 32 .) 12 :18 :37 17 regarding the document, to be deposed regarding the 12 :18 :37 :•`, 18 MR OBSTLER : With respect to this document, 12 :18 :37 18 documents but to designate that portion of -- for right 12 :18 :37 19 at least at this 1 ~" i6 document is marked Magma 12 :18 :37 19 now designate that portion of the deposition transcript 12 :18 :3 7 20 AEO, so I think well put this one -- 12 :18 :37 20 which deals with the documents, to seal that portion, 12 :18 :3 7 21 MR. EDELMAN : Treat it the same way . 12 :18:37 21 and no one, of course, can discuss it within the rules 12 :18 :37 j 22 MR . OBSTLER : We'll treat this -- and again, 12:18:37 22 of whatever the protective order !Sr and a motion can be 12 :18:37 23 we've got to be careful. I've got to know where his 12 :18 ;37 23 brought later on or before Judge Zimmerman and he can 12 :18 :37 3 24 portions of the testimony end and the designation stops, 12 :18 :37 24 decide the issue ." - 12:18 :37 25 so with respect to the testimony on this document we'll 12:18 :37 25 MR . EDELMAN : I apologize . I understood that 12 :18 :37 360 362

5 (Pages 359 to 362) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8eO-251c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIA L

I ruling as dealing with the issue that the parties were 12 :18 :37 1 consider that confidential . 12 :18 :3 7 2 addressing on whether or not Mr. van Ginneken can review 12 :18 :37 2 MR . EDELMAN : I believe that your letter that 12 :18 :37 3 the exhibit and my concern that review of the exhibits 12:18 :37 3 you sent to me attaching it pointed out that it was 12 :18 :37 4 causes me great problem. Obviously, I've got to think 12 :18 :37 4 marked confidential . 12 :18 :3 7 5 about this . Setting aside the issue of designating the 12 :18 :37 5 MR. BULCHIS : Not by us. I was pointing out 12 :18 :37 6 whole transcript or not, there's obviously a lot of 12 :18 :37 6 that they consider it confidential . 12:18 :3 7 7 testimony that has gone on today and yesterday that I 12 :18 :37 7 MR. OBSTLER : Let me say something else . 12 :18 :37 B think both parties would want to designate that doesn't 12 :18:37 8 Regardless of whether your settlement agreement with him 12 :18 :37 9 just deal with these particular documents . 12 :18 :37 9 is or is not confidential, that's really not the issue . 12 :18 :3 7 10 MR . OBSTLER : Well, I can tell you, we raised 12 :18 :37 10 You filed a declaration to the public, publicly filed a 12 :18 :37 11 the issue with the magistrate judge yesterday, and he 12 :18:37 11 declaration discussing 46 or 50 paragraphs of various 12 :16 :37 12 came back and this is what he said . 12 :18 :37 12 facts . That declaration was subsequently published . 12 :18 :37 13 MR . BULCHIS: And 1 can tell you that the 12 :18 :37 13 This witness has been questioned about specifically the 12 :18 :37 14 only part we consider to be confidential and will keep 12 :18 :37 14 testimony in that declaration, word for word, by you and 12 :18 :37 15 confidential is the portion of the transcript dealing 12 :18 :37 15 by us . How can you possibly designate that as 12 :18 :37 16 with those documents, Exhibits 22, 1 guess it's 26, and 12 :18 :37 16 confidential? 12 :18 :3 7 17 there may be one or two others, but it's only those 12 :18:37 17 MR . EDELMAN : Wait a minute . We re to i q 12:18 37 - 18 portions that are going to be segregated out from the 12 :18 :37 18 about two totally different things . First of all --and `-12 :18 :3 7 19 balance . 12:18 :37 19 I don't want to get into too long a discussion about 12 :18 :37 20 MR. OBSTLER : Let me just say something else . 12 :18 :37 20 this -- I would just say for the record `that your 12 :18 :37 21 There are clearly many portions of this testimony that 12 :18 :37 21 reference to me is inaccurate, and I would certainly 12 :18 :37 22 nobody in good faith can designate as confidential . 12 :18 :37 22 think that is not appropriate if you're making the, 12 :18 :37 23 MR . EDELMAN .: Well, you know, it's hard for 12 :18 :37 23 comment personal . I personally don't publish anything . 12 :18 :37 24 me to say that . , 12 :18 :37 24 My client does things or my client doesn't too things, or 12 :18 :37 25 MR . OBSTLER : Well, I can give you a few if 12 :18 :37 25 people Other thart my client o things And I have no 12 :18 :37 363 365

1 you'd like me to . 12 :18 :3 7 1 comment on t4d . 12 :18 :37 2 MR . EDELMAN : Let me finish . Mr. Bulchis has 12:18 :37 2 Second of all, the dispute yesterday was not 12 :18 :3 7 3 designated the settlement agreement between Mr. van 12 :16 :3 7 3 so much on the testimony concerning the declaration per 12 :18 :37 4 Ginneken and Magma as confidential, and I'm not -- 1 12 :18 :37 °4- se as much as it was the testimony concerning the 12 :18 :37 5 mean, one could debate that, but clearly, at least Mr . 12 :18 :37 f 5 discussiolis between the parties that led up to not only 12 :18 :37 6 van Ginneken believes, and I don't know if Magma agrees 12 :18 :3°' 5 the declaration but the settlement between Mr . van 12 :18 :37 7 with this, that the terms of a settlement agreement 12 :18 :3 7 7 Ginneken and Synopsys. And the only point I'm making 12 :18 :37 8 between the two of them or at least the terms of the 12 :1$:3 7 8 here is, you know, if I want to feel more comfortable 12 :18 :37 9 release between the two of them is a confidential piece 1 :18 :37 9 taking the position that the discussions and the 12 :18 :3 7 10 of information that should not be revealed to the 12 :18'37; 10 circumstances surrounding 5ynopsys's discussions with 12 :18 :37 11 public. 12:1832 11 Mr . van Ginneken should not be confidential, then it 12 :18 :37 12 So if, for example, I was to hear that .that;, 12 :18:3 7 12 seems to me that that same position should be taken with 12 :18:37 13 was not going to be retained confidential that might . 12 :18:3 7 13 respect to any agreement and the circumstances 12 :18:37 14 least sway me a little bit in believing that we're all 12 :18 :37 14 surrounding that agreement between Magma and Mr . van 12 :18 :37 15 operating under the same ground rules here, because a 12:18 :37 15 Ginneken . And it would at least put me more at ease if 12 :18 :3 7 16 lot of the testimony that's happened in the last 113 12:18:37 16 I heard that was true . 12 :18 :3 7 17 days deals with an agreement. between Synopsys and Dr . 12 :18 :3 7 17 MR . BULCHIS : Maybe we should go off the 12 :18 :37 18 van Ginneken. And I don't see really where Mr. van 12:18:37 18 record . 12 :18 :37 19 Ginneken• -- 12 :18 :37 19 MR . OSSTLER : Let's go off the record for a 12 :18 :37 20 MR . BULCHIS: It may be clear to you that 1 2:18 :37 20 second . 12 :18 :37 21 that's the case, but it isn't clear to us . We have 12 : 18 :3 7 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 12 :18 :37 22 never designated that document confidential, and 1, 12 :18 :37 22 time now is approximately 2 :39 p .m . 12 :18 :3 7 1 23 speaking for Dr, van Ginneken, we don't consider that 12:18:3 7 23 (Recess.) 12 :18 :37 24 agreement confidential . It was marked confidential by 12 :18 :3 7 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 12:18 :37 25 Magma, and that's the way we produced It, but we don't 12 :18 :37 25 The time now is approximately 2 :53 p .m . 12 :18 :37 364 366

6 (Pages 363 to 366) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b45bd8eO-251c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

I BY MR. EDELMAN : 12:18:37 1 A. I believe that was possible , yes. 12:18:37 2 Q. Dr, van Ginneken, could you review -- 12 :18 :37 2 Q. So when you signed the employment agreement 12 :18:37 3 MR. BULCHIS: Excuse me , counsel . Sorry to 12:18:37 3 you informed Magma , correct, that the inventions 12 :18 :37 4 interrupt . We still have the issue -- are you saying, 12 :18:37 4 contained in the driving on the left-hand side paper 12 :18:37 5 counsel, that this is confidential and therefore this 12 :18 :37 S were inventions that were the proper ty of Synopsys ? 12:18:37 6 needs to be bound separately with the other portions ? 12 :18:37 6 MR. OBSTLER : Objection . Calls for a 12 :18:3 7 7 MR . OBSTLER : Until I can get permission from 12 :18:37 7 conclusion, and I don't see the word "inventions" 12:18:37 8 my client, and I can do that on the next break . 12:18 :37 8 - anywhere in this paper , 12 :18:3 7 9 Q. Could you review the document that 's been 12:18:37 9 Q . You may answer . 12:18 :37 10 marked as Exhibit No . 32, and in particular review 12:18 :37 10 A . Yeah . That contains possible inventions . 12 :18 :37 11 paragraph 6 contained on page 10108 . Let me read into 12 :18 :37 11 Q . So shouldn't Magma have known when it 12 :18 :37 12 the record the second sentence of that paragraph . 12 :18:37 12 received this Exhibit A from you that the inventions 12 :18:37 13 Actually, before I do that, Dr . van Ginneken , is the 12 :18 :37 13 contained in the "Driving on the Left-Hand Side" paper 12:18:37 14 document that has been marked as Exhibit No . 32 a true 12 : 18 :37 14 were inventions that Synopsys owned pursuant to your 12 :18 :37 15 and correct copy of a proprieta ry information and 12:18 :37 15 obligations to Synopsys? Isn't that s6briething Magma 12 :18:37 16 inventions agreement that you signed at Magma ? 12 :18:37 16 should have known? 1?- 8 :3 7 17 A, I believe so . 12:18:37 17 MR . OBSTLER : objection : One sc:croitd,D van 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Moving back to paragraph 6 on page 10108, 1 12 :18:37 18 Ginneken. First of all lacks fouadatiop . Second of 12 :18 :37 19 want to read into the record the second sentence . "To 12 :18,37 19 all, it's completely speculative as to Jiat Magma should 12 :18 :37 20 avoid any unce rtainty , I have set forth on Exhibit A a 12 :18:37 20 or should not havelknow and third, it calls for a 12 :18 :37 21 complete list of all inventions that I have, alone or 12 :18:37 21 legal conclusion; and fourth *misstates his 12 :18 :37 22 jointly with others, conceived, developed or reduced to 12 : 18 :37 22 testimony,,and fifth, it is misleadiig . 12:18 :37 23 practice prior to my employment with the company, that I 12 :18:37 23 Q. Yqur answer?-' . 12 :18 :37 24 consider to be my property or the property of third 12 :18:37 24 A. I don know how'Magma should have known what 12 :18:37 25 pa rties, and that I wish to exclude from the scope of 12 : 18 :37 25 in the paper "Driving on the Left-hand Side." 12,18 :37 367 c~ 369

1 this agreement ." 12 ;18:37 Well, did Magma ever ask you for the papers 12 :18 ;3 7 2 Did you review that sentence before you 12 :18:37 that were listed in your Exhibit A? 12:18:3 7 3 signed this proprietary information agreement ? 12;18 :37 3 A. I don't recall that . 12 :18:37 4 A. I don't recall that . 12 :18:37 .: 4 Q . Did Magma ever conduct any investigation to 12 :18:37 5 Q. Did you in fact prepare an Exhibit A pursuar .. 12 '1,37 5 find out what inventions or information was contained 12 :18:37 6 to that paragraph ? 18 .3 6 within the papers that you represented were the prope rty 12:18:37 7 A. Yes , I did. 12 :18 :37 7 of Synapsys? 12 :18:3 7 8 Q. And was your understanding that yot were 12 :18 :37 8 A. I have no knowledge about such an 12 :18:37 9 preparing Exhibit A in order to provide mplete list 12:18 :37 9 investigation . 12:18 :3 7 10 of inventions that you had conceived, deve d or 12 :18:37 10 Q . You see in No . 4 it lists trade secrets 12 : 18:37 11 reduced to practice prior to your{empri W 12 :18:37 11 specific to Synopsys's implementation of the logic 12 :18:37 12 A, It was a list to recorck. 'or inventions, 12 :18:37 12 synthesis tool? 12:18 :37 13 yes, so to avoid d isputes7 12 :18:37 13 A. Yes. 12: 18 :3 7 14 Q. Do you agree`that under paragraph 6 the 12 :18:37 14 Q . What trade secrets did you have in mind ? 12:18:37 15 information contained in Exhibit A is information that 12:18:37 15 A. I'm not sure that I had anything speci fi c in 12:18:37 16 you represented! y oke eithe a :jproperty or the 12 : 18 :37 16 mind . That's just a global statement . 12:18:37 17 property of third pa rties?: 12 :18:37 17 Q. Did you have in mind as at least some of the 12 :18:3 7 18 A. Yes:, . 12 :18:37 18 trade secrets you were thinking about the trade secrets 12 :18 :3 7 19 Q. If we g~,to_Etthlbit A, do you see No . 5? It 12 :18:37 19 relating to constant delay? 12 :18 :37 20 makes a reference to the "Driving on the Left -Hand Side" 12 :18:37 20 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered . 12 :18:37 21 paper? 12 :18:37 21 He just said he had nothing in mind . It's a global 12 :18:37 22 A . Yes. 12:18:37 22 answer. 12:18:3 7 23 Q. Did you include that paper because that was a 12 :18:37 23 MR . EDELMAN ; Excuse me, you said your 12 :18:37 24 paper containing inventions that was the property of 12 :18 :37 24 objection . 12:18:3 7 25 Synopsys? 12 :18: 37 25 A. I think, you know, it could have covered 12 :18:37 368 370

7 (Pages 367 to 370) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8eO-251 c-43c3 -be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 those, quite actually . 12 :18 : 37 1 paper in 1998? 12:18 :37 2 Q. Do you see in No . 6 it references a patent 12 :18 :37 2 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 3 application regarding gate sizing and physical design ? 12:18:37 3 Q . Who at Magma did you discuss the redrafting 12 :18:37 4 A. Yes . 12 :18:37 4 of the paper in 1998? 12 :18:3 7 5 Q. Is that a reference to the '114 patent ? 12:18:37 5 A. I discussed it with Joe Hu tt for sure. 12:18 :37 6 A. Yes . 12:18:37 6 Others, I may have discussed it with Rajeev Madhavam, 12 :18 :3 7 7 Q. And it states that Narendra Shenoy and you 12 :18:37 7 - but I'm not sure of that. 12 :18:3 7 8 are the inventors, correct ? 12 :18:37 8 Q . What did you discuss with Joe Hu tt about the 12 :18:37 9 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 9 redrafting of the paper? 12 :18 :3 7 10 Q . Do you have any information to indicate that 12 :18:37 10 A. I don't recall these discussions that 12 :18 :37 1I anyone else participated in the conception of any of the 12 :18:37 11 clearly, but you know, at least I informed him that we 12 :18:37 12 inventions in the '114 patent other than you and Mr . 12:18:37 12 were going to do a redraft and that we were exchanging 12 :18 :37 13 Shenoy? 12 :18 :37 13 these papers . 12 :18 :3 7 14 A. No. 12:18 :37 14 Q . Did you inform Joe Hu tt that the redraft was 12 :18:3 7 15 Q, Now, are you aware that when Magma responded 12 :18:3 15 going to be of a paper concerning constant delay? 12 :18 :3 7 16 to Synopsys's letter in 1997 Magma represented that the 12 :18:37 16 A . I'm not sure of that . 12 :18 :3 7 17 trade secrets alleged by Synopsys concerning constant 12 :18 :37 17 Q . Did anyone else supervise or oversee the work 12 18.3 7 18 delay were in the public domain? Are you aware that 12 :18:37 18 that you did to redraft the paper in 1998? 12 :18.37 19 that representation was made? 12 :18:37 19 A . Not really . 12 .18:37 20 A . It said that, you know, that constant delay 12 :18 :37 20 Q. Did you provide for review the redraft of the 12 :18 :37 21 was in the public domain . Did it say trade secrets? 12 :18:37 21 paper to anyone at Magma ?,,: 12 :18:37 22 Can I refer to that ? 12 :18:37 22 A. I don't recall . 12:18:37 23 Q. Your recollection refers to constant delay or 12 :18 :37 23 Q . Is it possible that Rajeev Madhavam saw the 12 :18:37 24 it referred to trade secrets relating to constant delay? 12 :18:37 24 redraft of the paper in 1998 ?; 12 :18:3 7 25 A . I'd like to see the letter first . 12 :18 :37 25 A. Yeah its possible , 12 :18 :3 7 371 373

1 Q. Well, we're going to have to proceed without 12 :18:37 1 Q . Do you think it,)r uld have been clear to 12 :18 :37 2 the letter . Did you believe when the letter from Magma 12 :18:37 2 son gene in 1998 reviewing the redrafted paper that Magma 12 :18 :37 3 was sent to Synopsys in 1997 that all of the inventions 12 :18:37 3 was in the,process of using inventions that you had 12 :18 :37 4 that you had created relating to constant delay were in 12 :18:37 conceived "at Synopsys ? 12 :18 :37 5 the public domain? 12 :18:37 5 A. Th at 's kind of asking myself to put myself in 12 :18:37 y 6 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered . 12:18:37 somebody else's shoes. I think it depends on how much 12 :18 :37 7 A. I wasn't sure about that . 12:18 :37,< - 7 ~,time you would spent on it, and how clearly they would 12 :18:37 8 Q . At sometime in 1997 did you inform Rajeev 12 :18:37 8 read it, and how much they -- how much time they would 12 :18 :37 9 Madhavam about the inventions that you created at 12 :18:37 9 spend on it, and how much investigation they would do . 12 :18:37 10 Synopsys? 12 :18:37 10 Q. well, is it clear to you that the redrafted 12 :18 :3 7 11 A . No. 12 :1$ :37 11 paper contains the inventions in the Synopsys -- I'm 12 :18 :37 12 Q. Did you inform Rajeev Madhavam . bout the 12 :18:37 12 sorry. Is it clear to you that the redrafted paper 12 :18 :3 7 13 ICCAD paper, " Driving on the Left-hand Side "?`; :F. 12:18:37 13 contains the inventions in the '446 and '438 patent? 12 :18 :37 14 A . In '97? 12 :18:37 14 A . Yeah , at least some of them . 12 :18 :3 7 15 Q. Yes. 12 :18:37 15 Q. And if a person at Magma was familiar with 12 :18 :3 7 16 A . No. 12 :4$:37 16 the patent application that Magma had filed, would it 12 :18 :37 17 Q, After 1997 did you Inform Mr . Madhavam about 12 :18:37 17 have been clear to that person that the redrafted paper 12 :18:37 18 that? 12 :18:37 1S contained some of the same inventions that Magma was 12 :18 :37 19 MR. OBSTLER : I'm gain xp.gbject to the term 12 : 18:37 19 pu tting in its patent? 12 :18:37 20 "inform." I'm not sure what that means . It's vague and 12 : 18 :37 20 MR. BULCHIS : Object, lack of foundation. 12 :18:37 21 ambiguous. 12 :18:37 21 A . If someone had studied both papers next to 12 :18 :3 7 22 A. I'm not sure that I informed him , but I think 12 :18:37 22 each other I think that would have been clear , yes. 12:18 :37 23 that it's possible that he became aware of it when the 12 :18:37 23 Q . Did you ever talk to anybody at Pillsbu ry 12 :18 :37 24 paper was redrafted . 12 :18:37 24 about the redrafting of the 1998 paper? 12 :18:37 25 Q. You 're referring to the redrafting of the 12:18:37 25 A . No, I don't believe so . 12 :18 :37 372 374 .: --a. .. : ..s,..,,-a- s.. .,.. . .✓ :-~. ..rexw . .4: .-: ,. K. : x. - .- ..:r:-< ::. .v~ :-= ;=. w . .,--, - e waas_ 8 (Pages 371 to 374) EASTWOOD- STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 b05bd8e0-251c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465e8 CONFIDENTIAL

1 Q. Did you ever seek any legal advice pertaining 12 :18:37 1 Synopsys that was somewhat related to the NGSS project . 12:18:37 2 to the redrafting of the 1998 paper? 12 :18:37 2 I'm not sure about Mr . Wang's position at Synopsys at 12 :18:37 3 A. No. 12:18 :37 3 the time . So with the same caveats, I think Mr . Hutt 12 :18:37 4 Q. You testified earlier, actually yesterday, 12 :18:37 4 had a little bit more reason to be able to make the 12 :18 :37 5 concerning a meeting you had with Joe Hutt and Sang Wang 12 :18 :37 5 connection . 12 :18 :37 6 from Synopsys . Do you recall that? 12 :18 :37 6 Q, Do you have any information to indicate that 12 :18 :3 7 7 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 7 Mr . Hutt did in fact make a connection? 12 :18 :37 8 Q. During your meeting with Mr . Hutt and Mr . 12:18 :37 8 A. No, 1 do not. 12 :18 :3 7 9 Wang, did you ever inform either one of them that you 12 :18:37 9 Q . What was Mr. Huff's position at Synopsys when 12 :18 :37 10 were working on inventions that you had conceived at 12:18 :37 10 he met with Magma in 1998? 12 :18 :3 7 11 Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 11 A . I believe he was a manager in advanced 12 :18 :3 7 12 A . No . 12 :18 :37 12 technology group, or maybe he was heading the advanced 12 :18 :37 13 Q . Did either Mr . Hutt or Mr . Wang compare side 12 :18 :37 13 technology group . 12 :18 :3 7 14 by side your paper that you were redrafting in 1998 with 12 :18:37 14 Q. And who initiated the meeting between 12 :18 :37 15 your patent application? 12 :18 :37 15 Synopsys and Magma in 1998? 12:18 :3 7 16 A. Not to my knowledge . 12:18 :37 16 A. I believe it was Synopsys, but I don't have :., 12 :18:37 17 Q. Well, do you have any reason to believe it 12 :18 :37 17 firsthand knowledge of that . ;; 12 :18 :37 18 would have been clear to Mr . Hutt or Mr . Wang without 12 :18:37 18 Q. And who participated in theme"? 12 :18:37 19 that comparison that in fact Magma was using inventions 12 :18:37 19 A. In the meeting 12 :18:37 20 conceived at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 20 Q . Yes. 12 :18 :37 21 A. I have no reason to believe that Mr . Wang had 12 :18:37 21 A. I think from Synupsy~ there was Sang Wang and 12 :18 :37 22 any access to the patent application at all . 12 :18 :37 22 Joe Hutt, and at the Magma side there was myself and 12 :18 :37 23 Q . Is there any way that Mr . Wang could possibly 12 :18 :37 23 Rajeev ra dhavam, an ) think there may have been other 12 :18 :37 24 have known what was really going on with respect to your 12 :18 :37 24 people present for part oiithe meeting . I believe 12 :18:3 7 25 inventions at Synopsys? 12:18 :37 25 theres alsopart of the meeting which was between Mr . 12 :18:37 375 377

1 MR . OBSTLER: Objection . Lacks foundation . 12 :18 ;37 1 Madhavam, Mr. Hutt and Mr . Wang without me . 12 :18 :37 2 Its completely speculative . I don't know how he could 12 :18:37 "• Qr?J And during this meeting, did you disclose at 12 :18 :3 7 3 possibly know what was in Mr . Wang's head or what Mr . 12 :18 :37 3 any time the fixed timing invention that Magma was 12 :18 :37 4 Wang did or did not have access to . 12:18`37 .4 working on? 12 :18 :3 7 5 A. Mr. Wang received information about constantoe, 12 18 .3 5 A . We discussed fixed timing fairly extensively, 12:18 :37 6 delay synthesis as we were applying it at Magma f± 'Y .1837 6 yes . 12 :18 :37 7 Wang had access at Synopsys to information about the 12,1.6:37 7 Q . And were the origins of those inventions 12 :18:3 7 8 constant delay project here . Whether he made atse of 12 :18437 8 disclosed during this meeting? 12 :18 :37 9 that I don't know . 12;38 :37 9 A. No, they were not. 12:18 :37 10 Q. Would it have been obvious to some'd e.in Mr . ., 12 :18 :37 10 Q. Did Magma represent that the fixed timing 12:18 :3 7 11 Wang's position that the inventiortiY grr%, prking on, 12 :18:37 11 inventions it was working on were Magma-created 12 :18 :37 12 given what Magma disclosed 4LL were the same 12 :18 :37 12 inventions? 12:18:37 13 inventions that were invented at nnpsys 12 :18:37 13 A. Yes, I believe so. 12:18 :37 14 MR . OBSTLER : Same objection. I don't think 12 :18 :37 14 Q. And was that a true statement? 12 :18:3 7 15 there's any foundation for this witness to testify to -- 12 :18 :37 15 A. That's probably not true . Or not -- 12 :18 :3 7 16 A. I don't*it`o' whatlt-Wan new from 12 :18:37 16 certainly not completely true . 12 :18:37 17 Synopsys . can't testify td that. 12 :18:37 17 Q. At any time during this meeting in 1998, did 12:18 :3 7 18 Q . Woild it have been obvious to Mr. Hutt after 12 :18 :37 18 you inform either Mr. Hutt or Mr. Wang that Magma was in 12 :18 :37 19 receiving informaiMagma In 1998 that the 12 :18 :37 19 the process of filing patent applications for constant 12 :18 :37 20 inventions that Magma was working on had been conceived 12 :18:37 20 delay inventions? 12 :18 :37 21 at 5ynopsys? 12 :18:37 21 A. I'm not aware of that . 12 :18 :37 22 MR . OBSTLER : Same objection . And I also 12 :18:37 22 Q . Are you aware of any time before 2004 when 12 :18 :37 23 think It's getting pretty close to calling for a legal 12 :18 :37 23 Synopsys was informed that Magma was filing inventions 12 :18 :3 7 24 conclusion. 12 :18 :37 24 -- was filing patent applications for constant delay 12 :18 :37 25 A. I believe that Mr. Hutt had a position at 12 :18 :37 25 Inventions? 12 :18 :3 7 376 378 t 9 (Pages 375 to 378 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 b05bd8eO-251 c-43c3-beOl -f2b2d 7f465ea CONFIDENTIA L

I A. I'm not aware of that . 12 :18 :37 1 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered. 12 :18 :37 2 Q . Do you agree that there are different 12 :18 :37 2 A . I believe I answered that, yes . 12 :18 :37 3 approaches that a company could take to implement the 12 :18 :37 3 Q. Did you get interviewed by anyone in 1998 12 :18 :37 4 idea of constant delay? 12 :18 :37 4 pertaining to a due diligence process that Magma was 12 :18 :37 5 A. Well, that's a very general question, and how 12 :18 :37 5 conducting on its intellectual property? 12 :18 :3 7 6 different is different, but yes . 12 :18 :37 6 A. By Marios Papaefthyemiou? 12 :18 :37 7 Q . Do you know whether Synopsys knew before 2004 12 :18 :37 7 Q. Yes. 12 :18:37 8 that Magma was working on constant delay? 12 :18 :37 8 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 9 A . ] think so, 12 :18 :37 9 Q. And how long did you talk with Dr . 12 :18 :37 10 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 12 :18 :37 1 0 Papaefthyemiou? 12 :18 :37 11 because Synopsys knew that Magma was working on constant 12 :18 :37 1 1 A. I don't recall exactly, but perhaps half an 12 :18 :3 7 12 delay it therefore knew that it was -- that Magma was 12 :18 :37 1 2 hour or so . 12 :18 :37 13 using this same invention about constant delay that you 12 :18 :37 1 3 Q. What did you tell him? 12 :18 :3 7 14 had invented at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 1 4 A. I told him what technology we were working 12 :18 :37 15 MR . 08STLER : Objection, lacks foundation . 32 :18 :37 1 5 on. 12:18 :37;, . 16 Calls for speculation, 12 :18 :37 1 6 Q . Did you tell him about any concerns ` .:12 :18 :37 17 A . Yes, I would assume that . 12 :18 :37 1 7 pertaining to Synopsys's -- 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Why would you assume that? 12 :18 :37 1 8 A. No. 12 :18 :3 7 19 A . Because, you know, Magma presentations have 12 :18 :37 1 9 Q . You never mentioned Synopsys in the 12 :18 :37 20 been fairly extensively documented, the inventions and 12 :18 :37 2 0 discussion with him? 12 :18 :37 21 demonstrations at trade shows, briefings for customers, 12 :18 :37 2 1 A. I don't believe so . 12 :18 :3 7 22 sales of marketing materials, et cetera . 12 :18 :37 2 2 Q . Are you aware of whether .during this due 1218 :37 23 Q . So you believe Synopsys should have figured 12 :18 :37 2 3 diligence process Dr . Papaefthymiou jearned that there 12 :18 :37 24 out from that that the inventions Magma was using were 12 :18 :37 24 was a concern pertaining to the constant delay 12 :18 :37 25 inventions you conceived at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 2 5 inventions you conceived .at 5ynopsys? 12:18 :37 379 381

1 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, asked and answered . 12 :18 :37 1 A. I did not learn that at that time, no, 12 :18 :3 7 2 A. I think it could figure that out, yes, 12 :18 :37 2 Q ; Do you know that now? 12 :18 :3 7 3 Q . You think it could have figured it out? 12 :18 :37 3 A. I've heard that now, yes . 12 :18 :37 4 A. If it would have bothered to read those 12 :18 :37 4 Q. What have you heard about it? 12 :18 :3 7 5 materials, marketing materials . 12 :18 :37 5 A. Not much more than that . 12 :18 :37

6 Q . Do you think it would have been an easy thing 12 :18:37 6 Q . Where did you hear that from? 12 :18 :3 7 7 for Synopsys to figure out or it would have required an 12 :18 :37 7 A. I don't remember . 12:18:3 7 8 investigation? 12 :18 :37 8 Q, Now, you also testified yesterday to this, I 12 :18 :37 9 A . I think it would have been easy . 12 :18 :37 9 believe it was, panel discussion in which you and Mr . 12 :18 :37 10 Q. Well, do you think it would have been easy 12118:37 10 Camposano were participating? 12 :18:3 7 11 for Magma to figure out the same thing internally? . 12:18 :37 11 A. That's correct . 12:18 :37 12 MR . BULCHIS : Object to the question. as , vague 12:18 :37 12 Q. And during that panel you made a presentation 12 :18 :37 13 and ambiguous. :18 :37-11 13 relating to constant delay? 12 :18 :3 7 14 A . It's harder because Synopsys didn't make 12 :18 :37 14 A. Yes, that's correct . 12 :18 :3 7 15 nearly as much public statements about constant delay as 12 :18 :37 15 Q. And during that presentation did you indicate 12 :18 :37 16 Magma did . 1,2:18 :37 16 that the constant delay ideas you were presenting were 12 :18 :3 7 17 Q . Magma was in possession of your redrafted 12 :18 :37 17 ideas that Magma was utilizing? 12 :18 :3 7 18 1998 paper, correct? 12 :18 :37 18 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 19 A. That was not widely circulated . Yes, but it 12:18 :37 19 Q. Did you indicate that they were Magma 12 :18 :37 20 was not something that people were y- you know, that was 12 :18 :37 20 proprietary ideas? 12 :18:3 7 21 passed around . 12 :18 :37 21 A. No. 12:18 :37 22 Q . So your belief is that it would have been 12 :18 :37 22 Q. Did you indicate that they were ideas that 12 :18 :37 23 relatively easy for Synopsys to have figured out that 12 :18 :37 23 you had conceived at Magma? 12:18 :3 7 24 you were using Synopsys inventions but difficult for 12 :18 :37 24 A. I didn't make any representation about these 12 :18 :37 25 Magma to have figured it out? Is that your testimony? 12 :18 :37 25 ideas or where they came from. 12 :18:3 7 380 382 1

10 (Pages 379 to 382) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b05bd8eO-251c-43c3-beOl-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 Q. Was Mr. Camposano involved in the constant 12 :18:37 1 A. I don't recall . 12:18:37 2 delay work at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 2 MR . OBSTLER : The record needs to reflect 12 :18 :3 7 3 A. No. 12 :18 :37 3 that the witness does not have the letter before him . 12 :18 :37 4 Q. Do you think it would have been easy for Mr. 12 :18 :37 4 Q . Do you recall whether Magma assured Synopsys 12 :18 :3 7 5 Camposano to figure out based on your remarks at this 12 :18 :37 5 in writing that you would comply with your obligations 12 :18:3 7 6 panel discussion that, in fact, Magma was using 12 :18 :37 6 under your agreement to Synopsys? 12:18 :3 7 7 inventions that you had conceived at Synopsys? 12 :18 :37 7 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 8 A. His remarks seemed to suggest that he did . 12:18 :37 8 MR . OBSTLER : Objection, misstates, I think, 12 :18 :3 7 9 Q. That he had figured it out? 12 :18 :37 9 what the letter says . We don't have the letter in front 12 :18 :3 7 10 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 10 of him. 12 :18 :37 11 Q. Is anything that you said at the panel 12 :18 :37 11 Q. What steps did Magma take after that letter 12 :18:3 7 12 discussion something that should have revealed to Mr . 12 :18:37 12 was sent to be sure that you complied with your 12 :18 :37 13 Camposano that that was true? 12 :18 :37 13 obligations to Synopsys? 12 :18 :3 7 14 A. I presented technical information about 12 :18 :37 14 A. They basically told me that . 12 :18 :3 7 15 constant delay. 12:18 :37 15 Q. They told you what? 12 :18 :37 16 Q . And what exactly do you recall Mr . Camposano 12 :18:37 16 A. To abide by my agreement with Synopsv 12 :18:37 17 saying? 12 :18 :37 17 Q. Who told you that?_ 12 :18 :3 7 18 A. I don't recall exactly, but he made some sort 12 :18 :37 18 A. Rajeev Madhavam . 12 :18 :37 19 of statement of that the new technology of the startup, 12 :18:37 19 Q. Was this a short discussion you had with Mr, 12 :18 :3 7 20 Magma, was very familiar to him . 12 :18:37 20 Madhavam on that subject? 12 :18 :37 21 Q . Did he make any reference to constant delay 12 :18 :37 21 A. During the draftingpf the letter . 12:18:3 7 22 besides that? 12 :18 :37 22 Q. During the drafting of ffie letter you had the 12 :18 :37 23 A. No. 12 :18 :37 23 discussion? 12 :18 :37 24 Q. Are you just assuming that he was referring 12 :18 :37 24 A. 12 :18 :3 7 25 to constant delay? 12 :18:37 25 Q. After the letter was sent did you have any 12 :18 :37 383 385

1 A. That's pretty much all he talked about . 12:18 :37 1 furtheriiscussions with Magma about the need to comply 12 :18:3 7 2 Q. Did you talk also about gain-based synthesis? 12 :18 :37 wittf~aur obligations under the Synopsys agreement? 12 :18 :37 3 A . I don't recall exactly what I presented, but 12 15"37 3 A . Not that I recall. 12:18 :37 4 I may have talked about that as well . 12:x$ :37 4 Q . I believe you testified that you had a 12:18:3 7 5 Q . And what year did this panel discussion _12 :18 :37 5 meeting with Pillsbury attorneys and Mr . Madhavam about 12 :18 :3 7 6 happen? 12 :'8:37" 6 the sending of a responsive letter in 1997, correct? 12 :18 :3 7 7 A. I believe this was 1999. - ' 12:18 :37'1 7 A. Yeah . I have no recollection of this 12 :18 :37 8 Q. Were you aware that in 1997 Magma represented 12 :18 :37 8 meeting, but billing records show that it happened . 12:18 :37 9 to Synopsys that it was not going to utiA any 12,18 :37 9 Q . After the letter was sent -- 12 :18 :37 10 information proprietary to 5ynops's? Are c ,pware of 12 :18:37 10 MR. OBSTLER: I just want to caution the 12 :18 :37 11 that? 1.2-i8-37 11 witness, Ed, were not -- he starts to get into 12 :18 :37 12 A. That was in the letter?. 12 :18 :37 12 substance of meetings that were claiming a privilege, I 12 :18 :37 13 Q. Yes. 12:18 :37 13 think that's off limits . 12 :18 :3 7 14 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 14 MR . BULCHIS : Well, you know, it seems to me 12 :18:37 15 Q. Was that representation true? 12 :18:37 15 that if this is a conversation between Dr. van Ginneken 12 :18 :37 16 MR . OBtrLLR : ObjerstKn d alls for a legal 12 :18 :37 16 and Magma's attorneys that the privilege belongs to 12 :18:3 7 17 conclusion .-- 12 :18:37 17 Magma. If you want to assert that privilege, then on 12 :18 :3 7 18 A. No, actually . 12:18 :37 18 that basis I would instruct him not to answer . 12:18 :37 19 Q. Were there.. er statements that Magma made 12 :18 :37 19 MR . OBSTLER : Yes . We're going to assert 12 :18 :37 20 to Synopsys in 1997 that were not true? 12 :18 :37 20 that privilege at this time. 12:18 :37 21 A . Can I refer to the letter? 12 :18 :37 21 MR, EDELMAN : Just so the record is dear -- 12 ;18:3 7 22 Q. I was asking right now, based on what your 12 :18:37 22 I think it might already be but can't make it too clear 12 :18:3 7 23 recollection Is. 12:18 :37 23 -- Magma is asserting privilege relating to any 12 :18 :37 z 24 A. Any other statements that Magma made? 12 :18 :37 24 discussions between Magma or Dr . van Ginneken and 12 :18:3 7 25 Q. Yes. 12:18 :37 25 Pillsbury attorneys pertaining to the 1997 letters 12 :18 :3 7 384 386

11 (Pages 383 to 386 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 21 9-5300 bO5bd8eO-251 c-43c3•beOl -f2b2d 7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 between Synopsys -- 12 :18 :37 1 next few weeks , providing that people's schedules can 12 :18 :3 7 2 MR . OBSTLER : Right . When he was an employee 12 :18 :37 2 accommodate that . Both parties will make a good faith 12 :18:37 3 of Magma, that's correct . 12 :18 :37 3 effort to try to reach a scheduling agreement on that . 12:18:3 7 4 Q . You understand that the term "initial 12 :18 :37 4 MR. EDELMAN : Well, just a comment on that, 12 :18:37 5 intended delay" is utilized in the '446 patent . What is 12 :18 :37 5 and hopefully it will be quick . Synopsys has not yet 12 :18:37 6 your understanding of the term initial intended delay? 12 :18 :37 6 started its own deposition that it had noticed for 1 2 :18:37 7 A. My understanding is that that's a delay 12 :18 :37 7 today, so Synopsys is not taking any position today on 12:18 :3 7 8 that's assigned to cells before the process of logic 12 :18 :37 8 the ordering of questioning that should occur at another 12 :18:37 9 synthesis based on the analysis of the library itself 12 :18:37 9 session of the deposition or whether or not Magma is 12 :18 :37 10 without an analysis of the circuit . 12 :18 :37 10 entitled to redirect before Synopsys finishes its 12 :18:37 11 Q . And how did Magma's products as of the time 12 :18 :37 11 questioning on a deposition that was originally noticed 12:18:37 12 that you left in 2002 find the initial intended delay? 12 :18:37 12 to sta rt yesterday. 12 :18 :3 7 13 A . Through a process similar to the one 12 :18 :37 13 So the part ies can meet and confer about 12:18 :3 7 14 described in the '446 patent . 12:18 :37 14 that, and I'm confident that in good faith the pa rties 12 :18 :3 7 15 Q . Do you recall any differences in how Magma's 12 :18 :37 15 will work out that issue . 12:19 :3 7 16 products operated and the initial intended delay 12 :18 :37 16 MR . OBSTLER : Well, then I guess we don't = 12:18 :37. 17 described in the '446 patent? 12 :18 :37 17 have an agreement, because Magma 's viewds '[t-'s entitled 1218 :37 18 A. Well, It's a lot more complex than what it 12 :18 :37 18 to take redirect of a deposition that you've spent a'da` , 12:1.1 :37 19 seems in the patent . 12 :18 :37 19 cross-examining this witness on before -1/ou're entitled 12:18 :37 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Five minutes . 12 :18 :37 20 to take your own deposition . We dffered ypu the 12:18 :3 7 21 MR . EDELMAN : Why don't we take a break now . 12 :16 :37 21 oppo rtunity this morning to 9p forward with your 12.18 :37 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record . The 12:18 :37 22 deposition and you decided not to do that, and ou said 12 :18:37 23 time now is approximately 3 :25 p .m . and this is the end 12 :18 :37 23 you were going to take cross-exarrj'ation of Dr . van 12 :18:37 24 of tape No . 2 in the deposition of Lukas van Ginneken, 12 :18 :37 24 Ginneken . $# 12 :18 :3 7 25 (Recess .) 12:18 :37 2 5 MR. EDELMFA - I can_ certainly- sta rt my 1 2:18 :37 387 389

1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 12 :18 :37 1 deposifibf ,right now if pu'd like. I noticed the 12 :18 :37 2 The time now is approximately 4 :03 p .m ., and this is the 12 :18 :37 2 d ionfor".yestert sy. We've spent a day and a half 12:18 :3 7 3 beginning of tape No. 3 in the deposition of Lukas van 12 :18 :37 on your deposit I3 and exactly zero hours on mine . 12:18:37 4 Ginneken . 12 :18 :37 _ MR. OBSTLER: You noticed the deposition for 12 :18:3 7 5 MR . OBSTLER : Before we start, I just want to 12 :18 :37 5 ay . . 12 :18 :37 6 put a couple of things on the record, Counsel 12 :18 :37 , :**R. EDELMAN : For yesterday. 12 :18 :3 7 7 conferred, counsel Synopsys and Magma conferred, and I 17 :Ig:37 7 MR. OBSTLER : And we offered you the 12 :18 :3 7 8 think we've reached agreement on the following issues . 12 :18 :37 8 opport unity today to go forward with your deposition . 12:18:37 9 First of all, with respect to designation of the 12 :1 8 9 MR . EDELMAN : And I will take -- 12 :18:37 10 transcript as confidential in this case, the parties 12:18 :3 10 MR . OBSTLER: You said no, you wanted to 12:18:37 . Af 1 1 Wt have agreed that each party will have until Friday i! 11 cross-examine -- well, if you 're done then I 'm going to 12 :18:37 12 of business . ' :37 12 redirect. 12 :18:37 13 MR . EDELMAN : Whoa, whoa . I just told y 12:18:37 13 MR . EDELMAN : No . I'm willing to sta rt my 12 :18:3 7 14 haven't -- I didn't get any answer on that yet. I just 32 :18137 14 deposition if that's what you want me to do . I will 12 :18 :37 15 told you that . 15 point out that Dr . van Ginneken had about eight hours of 12 :18:37 16 MR . OBSTLER: Apparenttywe don't have, ;.:': 12 :18 :37 16 testimony. I think I'm at four, both because Dr. van 12 :18:37 17 agreement. 12 :18 :37 17 Ginneken took an extra 45 minutes to an hour on break 12:18:37 18 MR . EDELMAN : I don't have authority to agree 12 :18 :37 18 for lunch, and because there have been two different 12:18:37 19 to anything on that yet. 12 :18 :3 7 19 breaks at which the witness or someone else has taken 12 :18:37 20 MR . OBSTLER : Second of all, regarding 12 :18 :37 20 way too much time . I have at least four or five hours 12:18 :37 2 1 Magma's redirect, there is an agreement that at the 12 :18:37 21 of questioning to go to equal the questioning that Magma 12 :18:37 22 conclusion of Mr . Edelman's testimony Magma -- excuse me 12 :18 :37 22 had yesterday . So to even finish my cross -examination 12:18:37 23 -- Mr. Edelman's examination, Magma will have the 12 :18 :37 23 on this deposition, I am entitled to at least another 12:18 :37 24 opportunity to conduct redirect examination of this 12 :18,37 24 five hours. And so I don't want to really want to have 12 :18:37 25 witness at a date to be mutually determined within the 12 :18 :37 25 to go there. All I'm going to say is I think the 12 :18:37 388 390

12 (Pages 387 to 390) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8e0-251 c-43c3-beO 1 -f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 parties can work this all out after today, but I think 12:1837 1 statement might disclose claim 49? 12 :18:37 2 that's where it should be left . 12 :18 :37 2 A. Yes . 12:18 :3 7 3 MR . OBSTLER : Well, Magma is reserving its 12 :18 :37 3 Q. Do you think the Sutherland paper discloses 12 :18 :3 7 4 right to take redirect examination before you start your 12 :18 :37 4 claim 49? 12:18 :3 7 5 deposition . 12 :18:37 5 A. I'm not sure of that. 12 :18 :37 6 MR . EDELMAN : I understand . We each reserve 12 :18 :37 6 Q . Other than claim 49 is there any other claim 12 :18 :37 7 our rights, 12 :18 :37 7 in the '446 patent that you believe is disclosed in 12 :18 :3 7 8 Q. Dr . van Ginneken -- 12 :18 :37 8 pages 2097 to 2098? 12 :18 :37 9 MR . OBSTLER: So much for our ability to get 12 :18:37 9 MR . OBSTLER : Same objections regarding the 12 :18 :37 10 agreements. 12:18 :37 10 fact it calls for legal conclusions, involves 12 :18 :3 7 11 Q. -- if you could get out an ICCAD presentation 12 :18 :37 11 potentially expert testimony, and could call for claim 12 :18 :3 7 12 document, ] don't have the number in front of me of the 12 :18 :37 12 construction . 12 :18 :37 13 exhibit . Exhibit S. 12 :18 :37 13 A. I believe that some of the dependent claims 12 :18 :3 7 14 Q . And I want you to point out where in this 12 :18 :37 14 may be disclosed in the same manner . 12 :18:3 7 15 exhibit you see any discussion related to constant 12 :18 :37 15 Q. Are you referring to the fad that the 12 :18 :3 7 16 delay . 12 :18 :37 16 dependent claims are disclosed in the~Sutherland paper? 12 :18 :3 7 17 A. Its on this page, page number is Magma 12 :18 :37 17 A. Yes, 124 3 7 18 IC002097, and continuing to the next page . 12 :18 :37 18 Q . Is there any claim other than farm 49 that 12:18 :3 7 19 Q. . Are there any other pages in this exhibit in 12 :18 :37 19 you can identify in wltki all offtheelementa are 12 :18 :3 7 20 which you see a reference or discussion to constant 12 :18:37 20 actually disclosed n the pcument marked as Exhibit 8? 12 :18 :3 7 21 delay? 12 :18 :37 21 A. No . 12:18 :37 22 A. I think those are the only two pages . 12 :18 :37 22 MR : EDELf7AN : Mark-his next in order, the 12 :18 :3 7 23 Q. Does the discussion on constant delay on 12 :18:37 23 '438 pathpt, 12 :18:3 7 24 pages 2097 and 2098 disclose all of the elements of the 12 :18 :37 24 (End of confideritlal session .) 12 :18 :3 7 25 claims in the '446 and '438 patent? 12 :18 :37 25 (Marked Deposition Exhibit 33 .) 12 :18 :37 391 393

I A. No. 12:18 :37 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record . 12:18 :3 7 2 Q . Does it disclose all the elements of any 12 :18 :37; ',2 The time now is approximately 5 :22 p.m. 12:18 :3 7 3 claim in the '446 or '438 patents? 12 :18 .37' 3 (Beginning of confidential session .) 12 :18 :37 4 A. Possibly. I would have to spend more time on 12:18 :37 4 Q . Dr . van Ginneken, I would like to refer you 12 :18 :37 5 that . 12 :18 :37 5 to Exhibit No. 24 as the exhibit entitled 'The Constant 12 :18 :37 6 Q. Well, if you could look at the '446 patent 12 :37 6 Delay Methodology." 12 :18 :3 7 7 that has been marked as Exhibit No . 5. Please review 12:.38:37 . 7 MR . BULCHIS : Now, this is the document that 12 :18 :37 8 that patent to determine whether or not the pages we're 12 18 :37 8 we agreed was confidential yesterday, so this should be 12 :18 :3 7 9 referring to disclose all the elements of at Claiim , 12 :18 :37 9 bound separately . 12 :18:3 7 10 MR . OBSTLER : I'm going to object 66,this 12 :18 :37 10 MR . OBSTLER : It already is. 12:18 :3 7 11 question because I think it calls` f expo to mony, 12 :18 :37 11 MR . BULCHIS : But he's going to testify some 12 :18:3 7 12 possibly claim construction, and ..certainty a conclusion 12:18:37 12 more about it, I guess . So this part would be 12 :18 :37 13 of law. 12 :18 :37 13 confidential . 12:18 :3 7 14 A . Well, it seems'to me that i arguable that 12 :18:37 14 MR. OBSTLER: Well, until a later 12 :18:37 15 claim 49 is disclosed in ..; . 12:18 :37 15 de-designation. 12:18 :37 16 Q . You tliMl s argua' i claim 49 is 12 :18 :37 16 MR . BULCHIS : This is in the part that's 12 :18 :37 17 disclosed on pages 2097.to 2098? 12:18 :37 17 confidential for now. 12 :18 :3 7 18 A. Well; it refers to;Sutherland and Sproull in 12 :18 :37 18 A. Okay, I have it. 12:18:3 7 19 the document, atf _Clai 449 is fairly direct from that . 12:18 :37 19 Q . And I want you to turn to section 3-1 which 12 :18 :37 j 20 Q . Does the document marked as Exhibit 8, 12 :18:37 20 begins on page SY 7492 . 12 :18 :37 21 referring to the pages we've been talking about, 12 :18:37 21 A . Yes, 12 :18:37 22 actually disclose the elements of claim 49? 12 :18 :37 22 Q. Who drafted the section 3-1? 12 :18 :3 7 23 A . No . It's a reference to publication that -- 12 :18 :37 23 A. I'm not really sure who drafted this section . 12:18 :37 24 Q . So you're saying if you read the Sutherland 12 :18 :37 24 Q . Well, was the language in section 3-1 copied 12 :18 :37 i 25 paper that the Sutherland paper in combination withrthis 12:18 :37 25 from some other document or was it drafted from scratch? 12 :18 :37 392 422

13 (Pages 391 to 422 ) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8eO-251 c-43c3-be01-f2 b2d 7f465ea CONFIDENTIA L

1 A . Drafted from scratch . 12 :18 :37 1 becomes more advantageous to use a buffer to increase 12 :18 :37 2 Q . You don't know whether you drafted it or Mr . 12 :18 :37 2 the gain ra th er to increase the gain of the gate 12 :18 :37 3 Kudva drafted it? 12 :18 :37 3 itself. " - 12 :18 :3 7 4 A . I seem to recall that Mr. Kudva worked on the 12 :18 :37 4 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 5 subject, so I think he had some input on this section . 12 :18 :37 5 Q. You're saying it's a coincidence that has the 12 :18 :37 6 Q. I'm going to read the first sentence of the 12 :18 :37 6 same language? 12 :18:3 7 7 section into the record. It states, The method that we 12 :18 :37 7 A . It's expressing the same idea . It's written 12 :18 :37 8 propose for finding the constant delays is based on a 12 :18 :37 8 by the same author . 12 :18:37 9 comparison of the gates to an amplifier, either a buffer 12 :18:37 9 Q. And that's why it has the same language ? 12 :18:37 10 or an inverter ." Do you see that sentence? 12 :18 :37 10 MR. SULCHIS : I object to the form of the 12 :18:37 11 A . Yes. 12:18 :37 11 question . I don't think the language is the same. It's 12:18:37 12 Q . I want you to keep that in front of you, and 12:18 :37 12 similar, but one says "the basic idea is that," and 12 :18:37 13 1 want you to refer now -- 12 :18 :37 13 other is "the method is based on ." I think you 're 12 :18 :37 14 A . Excuse me . This is a different section than 12 :18 :37 14 mischaracterizing the document, 12 :18:3 7 15 I thought it was initially. I drafted this section . 12 :18 :37 15 Q . We'll go to the next sentence. Next senteni a 12 :18:37 16 Q. Okay, you drafted the section 3-1? 12 :18 :37 16 says , "By adding more and more buffers, each one of 12 :187 17 A . Yes. 12 :18:37 17 larger size, the gain of the combination can 18 Q . Now, if you could refer back to the '446 12 :18 :37 18 exponentially as delay increases ." The next sgnterfte -_. ., 1 x'18:37 19 patent, which has been marked as Exhibit 5 and keep that 12 :18 :37 19 Next sentence of the '446 patent says,""By 12:18 :37 20 document in front of you. And I want to refer you 12 :18 :37 20 adding more buffers, wherein eac 'added buffer is of a 12 :18:37 21 particularly to column 7 beginning at about line 21 . 12:18 :37 21 larger size than a previously ailed buffer , Ai gaip=of 12 :18:37 22 MR . OBSTLER : Which patent is this now? 12 :18 :37 22 the combination , gate and$uffers;, can grow IT' 12:18 :37 23 MR . EDELMAN : The '446 patent . 12 :18 :37 23 exponentially as delay if ceases ." 12:18:37 24 A. Where in the '446 patent? 12 :18 :37 24 Is it still your testimony you did not have 12 :18 :37 25 Q . Column 7, line 21 . 12:18 :37 2 5 section 3-1 in front' of you when you drafted the '446 12 :18:37 423 425

1 MR. OBSTLER : We need two seconds to get it 12 :18 :37 1 patents,' 12 :18 :37 2 up here. Hold on . 12 :18:3 7 2 A Yes, ft. is. 12 :18 :3 7 3 MR . EDELMAN : Sure. 12 :18 :3 7 Q. Go to th ext sentence . Next sentence of 12 :18 :37 4 MR . OBSILER : Where was It again, Michael, 12 :18 :37 ` .; 3-1 says, "In the following analysis we will assume that 12 :18:37 5 column? 12 : 18 :37 5 we can dakontinuous buffering, that Is, that we can do 12:18 :37 6 MR . EDELMAN : 7, line 21 . 12 :18 :37 an `Iri tesimariy small amount of buffering ." 12:18 :37 7 Q . On line 21 of column 7 in the '446 patent the 12 :18 ;x,7 7 The next sentence of the '446 patent says , 12 :18 :37 8 sentence states, "Th e method for finding the constant 12 : 1 :37 8 n the following analysis , it is assumed that 12 :18 :3 7 9 delay is based on a comparison of the gate to an 1'2 :V ;37`, 9 continuous buffering can be made whereby it is possible 12 :18:37 10 inve rter ." 12 .18 :3 7 10 to insert an infinitesimally small amount of buffering ." 12 :18:37 11 A. Yes . 1218. 11 Your testimony is that's a coincidence? 12 :18 :37 12 Q . Does that have similar language to 8 :37 12 MR, OBSTLER : I want to object to the whole 12 :18 :37 13 sentence from "The Constant Delay Methodology" r we, . 12 :18 :37 13 line of questioning for a second . Witness already said 12 :18 :37 14 just read? 12 :18 :3 :` . 14 he didn't have the paper in front of him when he drafted 12 :18 :37 15 A. Similar. 12 :18 :37, 15 this . I understand your argument is you think th ere' s 12 :18 :37 16 Q . Did you have the secton'3 f in fran 12 :18 :37 16 similarities, but he' s testified to why he thinks 12 :18 :37 1 7 when you drafted th e '446 pEent ? ,~ 12 :18 :37 17 there 's similarities, so you can commit to -- you can go 12 :18:3 7 i' r 18 A . No, I did not . :.- 12 :18:3 7 18 through the time and read him each sentence and ask him 12 :18 :37 19 Q. Well, let's go to the nezC:sennte Turning 12 :18 :37 19 each question, but don 't complain about the fact that 12 :18 :37 20 back to Exhibit 24 It states , "The basic idea is that at 12 :18:37 20 you claim you haven't had enough time to question the 12 :18:37 21 some point, It becomes more advantageous to use a buffer 12 :18 :37 21 witness . 12 :18 :3 7 22 to increase the gain rather to Increase the gain of the 12 :18 :37 22 MR . EDELMAN : This is ve ry important . If the 12 :18 :37 23 gate Itself." 12 :18 :3 7 23 witness is going to take this position under oath I want 12 :18 :37 24 Th e next sentence of the '446 patent says, 12 :18 :37 24 the jury to see it. 12 :18 :37 25 "The method is based on the idea that at some point it 12 :18:37 25 Q. Next sentence says, "This is obviously not 12 :18:37 424 426

14 (Pages 423 to 426) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b05bd8e0-251c-43c3-beO1-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

I true, however, on a path for several gates, several 12 :18 :37 1 what I recall . 12:18:37 2 fractional buffers can be combined into a single real 12 :18:37 2 Q . Is it possible that your recollection is not 12 :18 :37 3 buffer," 12 :18 :37 3 correct? 12 :18 :37 4 The next sentence of the '446 says, "On a 12 :18 :37 4 A. I do not recall having this paper. . 12 :18 :3 7 5 given path with several gates, several fractional 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Is it possible that there was another 12 :18 :37 6 buffers can be combined into a single real buffer ." 12 :18:37 6 document created at Synopsys which used the language 12 :18 :37 7 Your position there's similarity between those two 12 :18:37 7 from 3-1 that you used to help you draft a portion of 12 :18:3 7 8 sentences is a coincidence? 12 :18 :37 8 the '446 patent? 12-.18 :37 9 A. Yes . 12 :18 :37 9 A. No. 12 :18 :37 10 Q. Next sentence of the section 3-1 says, "5o 12 :18 :37 10 Q. So we don't have to read mathematical 12:18 :3 7 11 for a circuit with many levels of logic, it approaches 12 :18:37 11 equations, I will skip down to the bottom of page 10 on 12 :18 :37 12 reality . Three . Derives the same result using a 12 :18 :37 12 Exhibit No . 24. Its still on page 7492. You see the 12 :18 :3 7 13 somewhat different approach ." 12 :18 :37 13 bottom paragraph starts with the words, 'The 12 :18 :37 14 The next sentence of the '446 patent says 12 :18 :37 14 interpretation of using this constant delay as the delay 12 :18 :3 7 15 says, 'Thus, for a circuit with many levels of logic, 12 :18 :37 15 to be used in synthesis is that this del is the 12 :18:3 7 16 continuous buffering may be achieved approximately or it 12 :18 :37 16 cross-over point between using buffersuiru o buffe 12 :18 :37 17 approaches reality." Its your testimony its a 12 :18 :37 17 If you'll go down to line ,64 of column .? 12:18:3 7 18 coincidence between those two paragraphs? 12 :18:37 18 states, "The interpretation of using this ronstaht1delay 12 :18 :37 19 MR . OBSTLER: I want to object to the term 12 :18:37 19 is that this delay is the-dross-over point bete een using 12 :18 :37 20 "coincidence ." 1-don't think he said it was a 12 :18 :37 20 buffers versus strethhing for gain," 12 :18 :37 21 coincidence . I think he's the same author and he's 12 :18 :37 21 Does that refresh your-recollection that you 12 :18 :37 22 expressing his ideas . He didn't say it was a 12 :18 :37 22 had section ~4 in front of you when you were drafting 12:18 :37 23 coincidence . 12:16 :37 23 the'446` atent? 12 :18 :37 24 Q, Or. van Ginneken, it is your testimony under 12 :18 :37 24 MR Q1BSTLER : ijection, Its asked and 12 :18 :37 25 oath and under penalty of perjury that you did not have 12 :18 :37 25 aged,,: . 12:18 :3 7 427 ._' 429

1 section 3-1 in front of you when you drafted the '446 12 :18 :37 A.,No. 12:18 :37 2 patent? 12 :18 :37 -.2 C7. The next sentence states from the Exhibit 24, 12 :18 :37 3 A. Yes. 12:18 :37 3 "Ist other words, a delay of a gate on a critical path 12 :18 :3 7 4 Q. The next sentence says, "Assuming we can do 12 :18:37 4 should never be slower than this." The next sentence in 12 :18 :3 7 5 continuous buffering, the delay of a series of buffers 12 :17 5 the '446 patent beginning on line 66 says, In other 12 :18:37 6 can be written as T log (Bguf), that is, the gain of"--a '12„18 :37 6 words the delay of a gain on a critical path should 12 :18 :37 7 series of buffers increases exponentially with) its 12 :18 8 7 never be slower than this cross-over point value ." 12:18 :3 7 8 delay." 12 :18 :37 8 Does this refresh your recollection that you 12 :18 :37 9 The paragraph of the '446 pateiitsays, 12 :18:37 9 were using section 3-1 in order to draft the '446 12 :18 :3 7 10 "Assuming continuous buffering can be ma 7z ekthe delay of 12 :18:37 10 patent? 12 :18 :37 11 a series of Ideal inventors can b .-witte W og; 12 :18 :37 11 MR . OBSTLER: Same objection . 12:18 :37 12 (Hinv) wherein T is a time corjs~ant an3 Hinv is the 12 :18 :37 12 A. No. 12:18 .37 13 inverter gain . In other words, H ain iSfa series of 12 :16 :37 13 Q . Did you see at the end of section 3-1 it 12 :18 :37 14 buffers increases expopentially witti its de ay ." 12 :18 :37 14 x refers to the fact that 'The answer is closer to 3 .6"? 12 :18 :37 15 Is it your testimony that yob did not derive 12 :18:37 15 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 16 that paragrapl 'frorlh} lines 3 r 'h 40 from the portion 12 :18 :37 16 Q . Do you see in the '446 patent in column 8 12 :18 :37 17 in 3-1 of "lie Constant .Delay Methodology" paper? 12 :18 ;37 17 beginning on line 7 it states, "Using the result that 12 ' :18 :37 18 A. I did not have the paper at that time . 12:18 :37 18 the gain of an inverter should be about 3 .6." 12 :18 :37 19 Q. Havin ; the similarity in these two 12 :18 :37 19 A. Uh-huh . 12 ;18 :37 20 papers, do you have any doubt whether or not you had 12 :18 :37 20 Q . Do you have an explanation for why the number 12 :18 :3 7 21 "The Constant Delay Methodology" in front of you? 12 :18 :37 21 3 .6 appears in the '446 patent in that spot and appears 12 :18 :37 22 A . I recall that I did not have that paper. 12 :18 :37 22 where we just read it in 'The Constant Delay 12 :18 :3 7 23 Q. Well, given the similarities, is it possible 12 :18 :37 23 Methodology" paper that has been marked as Exhibit 24? 12 :18 :37 $ 24 your recollection is incorrect? 12 :18 :37 24 A. I determined the number 3 .6 at Synopsys, and 12 :18 :3 7 25 A. I find the similarities striking, but that's 12 :18 :37 - 25 this is the number that I clearly remember. 12:18 :37 428 430

15 (Pages 427 to 430)' EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMEN T (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8eO-251c-43c3-beO1-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIA L

I Q . Why did you remember the number 3 .6? 12 :18 ;37 1 Q . Do you think it's possible that you did? 12 :18 :37 2 A . It's just a single number . It's an important 12 :18 :37 2 That's all I'm asking . 12 :18 :37 l 3 number. 12 :18 :37 3 A. You know, this is what I recall . That's all 12 :18:37 4 Q . Why is it an important number? 12 :18 :37 4 I can say . 12:18 :3 7 5 A . Because it's used in the characterization of 12 :18 :37 5 Q . Well, I think I'm entitled to an answer to 12 :18:37 6 the inverter. 12 :18 :37 6 the question . It's either possible or it's not 12 :18:37 7 Q . Two more sentences . If you go to the top of 12 :18 :37 7 possible . 12:18:37 8 page 11 on page 7493, the first full sentence in this 12 :18 :37 8 MR . BULCHIS: Anything is possible . He's 12 :18 :37 9 page states, "If more path gain is required, a buffer is 12 :18 :37 9 telling you what he can recall . That's not what he's 12:18 :37 10 a better solution than slowing down the gate ." 12 :18 :37 10 here for. He's not here to speculate on what's possible 12 :18 :37 11 If you go to column 8 of the '446 patent 12 :18 :37 11 and impossible . 12 :18 :37 12 beginning on line 2, it says "if more path gain is 12 :18 :37 12 MR . EDELMAN : One more question . 12 :18 :37 13 required, a buffer is a faster solution than slowing 12 :18 :37 13 MR . BULCHIS : It's really badgering the 12 :18 :37 14 down the gate ." 12 :18 :37 14 witness at this point . He's answering it over and over, 12 :18 :3 7 15 Does that refresh your recollection that you 12 :18 :37 15 and you keep asking the same question over again because 12 :18 :37 16 had 'The Constant Delay Methodology" paper in front of 12 :18 :37 16 you're not getting the answer you want. 124!8:37 17 you when you were drafting the specification for the 12 :18 :37 17 MR . EDELMAN : One more question . 12 :-M 3711 18 '446 patent? 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Are you able to tell me today as you sit here 12 :1837 19 A . No. 12 :18 :37 19 whether or not it is possible that you used 'The 12 :18,37 20 Q . Do you think it is possible for you to have, 12 :18 :37 20 Constant Delay Methodology" paper to help draft the 12 :18 :37 21 a year apart, drafted those two sentences that were that 12 :18 :37 21 specification for the Magma patent filed in 1997? 12 :1837 22 close? 12 :18 :37 22 A . I believe that's the same question again:12 :18 :37 23 A. I think it is possible . 12 :18 :37 23 Q. And what is your sinswer? 12 :18 :37 24 Q . Do you think it is possible for you to have 12 :18 :37 24 A. My answer is that t iecall not having the 12 :18 :37 25 drafted all of the similarities that we have just gone 12 :18 :37 2 5 document. 12 :18:37 43 1 433

1 over? 12 :18 :37 1 Q. You recall that among the constant delay 12 :18 :37 2 A . I think its possible . 12 :18 :37 2 inventionsth at you€onceived was the concept of 12:18 :37 3 Q. You do think its possible? 12 :18 :37 3 adjusting the delays as part of a constant delay 12:18 :3 7 4 A . (Nodding head .) 12 :18 :37 methodology? 12 :18 :37 5 Q. Next sentence says, "Also, if continuous 12 :18:37 5 A. Yes . 12 :18 :3 7 6 sizing is permi tted, using the buffer will be a more 12:18 :37 MR . BULCHIS : Excuse me, counsel. Would you 12 :18 :37 7 area-efficient solution." Lines 4 to 5 on the '446 12 :1$837 7 agree that the portion of Exhibit 24 that we just talked 12:18 :37 8 patent says , "Also, use of a buffer will be a more 12 :18:37 8 about, testimony concerning that, can be bound in the 12:18:37 9 area-sufficient solution ." 12 :18:33 ;, 9 nonconfidential portion in view of the similarities that 12:18 :37 10 Does that refresh your recollection that ygu 12 :18:37 10 you read between that and Exhibit 33? 12 :18 :3 7 11 used 'The Constant Delay Methodology " paper?' ." ;2,18:37 11 MR . EDELMAN : My position is there is no 12 :18 :3 7 12 A . No. z42:18 ;3 7 12 nonconfidential portion. I agree that it can be bound 12:18 :3 7 13 Q. Do you believe in reviewing some of these ' 122:18 :37 13 in the other portion of the transcript that is being 12:18 :3 7 14 example similarities that I've just gonee, over that in ' 12 :18 :37 14 bound together with most of the rest of the deposition 12 :18 :37 15 fact your recollection was not accurate and that you did 12 :18 :37 15 separate from the portion of the transcript that is 12 :18 :37 16 have 'The Constant Delay MetF ddlogy " paper..iii front of 12:18 :37 16 being bound separately with particular exhibits in it . 12:18 :37 17 you when you were drafting the '446 patent? 12 :18 :37 17 MR . BULCHIS : Thank you. 12 :18 :3 7 16 MR. OBSTLER : Objection. Its asked and 12 :18:37 18 MR . OBSTLER: How can that be? We've got 12 :18 :37 19 answered . it's starting to get veryt entative . 1 12 :18:37 19 double levels of designations here? I'm confused . 12:18 :3 7 20 think the witness has made his testimony clear . I 12 :18:37 20 MR . EDELMAN ; I'm confused as well . 12 :18 :37 21 understand you're not ge tting the testimony you want. 12 :18:3 7 21 MR. OBSTLER : Well, we got a ruling yesterday 12:18 :3 7 22 MR. EDELMAN : I'm getting exactly the 12 :18:37 22 yesterday from the judge . 12 :18:37 23 testimony I want. 12 :18:3 7 23 MR. EDELMAN : Get a ruling on this . 12:18 :3 7 24 A. I do not have a recollection of having this 12:18:37 24 MR. BULCHIS : Madam court reporter, you 12:18 :37 25 paper . 12:18 :37 25 understand that Exhibit -- the testimony regarding 12:18 :37 432 434 1-

16 (Pages 431 to 434) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8eO-251 c-43c3-beol -f2 b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

I Exhibit 33 compared to 24 would be bound with the main 12 :18 :37 1 finding the delay of the inverter and then using 12 :19:37 2 portion, not the portion that is bound with Exhibit 22, 12 :18:37 2 comparison of the other gates to the inverter to find 12:18:37 3 for example? 12 :18 :37 3 the delays of the other gates . 12:1 8:37 4 THE REPORTER : I understood that's what you 12 :18 :37 4 Q. Who authored the code that enabled the blast 12 :18 :3 7 5 said . 12 :18 :37 5 fusion product to set the initial intended delays? 12:18 :3 7 6 Q . How does Magma's tools perform the adjustment 12 :18 :37 6 A. Hamid Savoj did the first draft of the code . 12:18 :3 7 7 of delays as of the time that you left Magma? 12 :18 :37 7 After that I took over the code and improved it and 12 :18:3 7 8 A. As of the time that I left Magma? 12 :18:37 8 maintained that code for a considerable period of time, 12 :18:3 7 9 Q . Yeah . 12:18 :37 9 but over time other people have made changes to that 12 :18 :3 7 10 A. Well, some of this code was rewritten before 12 :18 :37 10 code as well . 12 :18 :37 11 I left, and I'm not completely sure about the 12 :18 :37 11 Q. Was there a command that it be entered to 12 :18:3 7 12 functioning of the code after that . 12 :18 :37 12 calculate or determine the initial intended delay in 12 :18:3 7 13 Q. In terms of the code that you were familiar 12 :18 :37 13 blast fusion? 12 :18 :37 14 with, how did the Magma tools perform the adjustment of 12 :18 :37 14 A. The command did several things, but yes, it 12 :18 :37 15 delays? 12 :18 :37 15 did this among other things . 12:1 8:3 7 16 A. Basically went through all the gates and did 12 ;18 :37 16 Q. Did a user have to enter a command to 12 :18 :3 7 17 the timing, performed the timing, measured the slack at 12 :18 :37 17 determine the initial intended delay or wo~tc! b 12 :18 :3 7 18 all the gates, and then in a number of iterations it 12 :18 :37 18 fusion do that automatically? 12 :18:3 7 19 would adjust the slacks of each of the gates 12 :18 :37 19 A. The way blausion works is that there are 12 :18 :3 7 20 proportionally, the delay of each of the gates 12 :18 :37 20 many commands tor dec d operations, which are then 12 :18 :37 21 proportionally to the slack . 12:18 :37 21 grouped into. ipts which' rovided by Magma, and 12 :18 :3 7 22 Q . Was there a user command that could be 12 :18 :37 22 usually the user just rents the ' ripts and does not 12 :18 :37 23 entered to adjust the delays or was this something that 12 :18:37 23 consider the individual commands within the script . 12 :18 :3 7 24 happened internally within the product? 12 :18 :37 24 However, t user does4iave the ability to modify the 12 :18 :37 25 A. It was a user command . 12 :18 :37 2 5 serptsar;;tyenter each of these commands individually . 12 :18 :37 43 5 43 7

1 Q. And what was the user command? 12 :18 :37 1 Q •.So when the user utilizing the scripts the 12 :18 :37 2 A. Trim, run gate trim . 12 :18 :37 2 blastfusion product would determine the initial 12 :18 :37 3 Q. Was that true of blast fusion what you just 1 :8 :37 3 ,"ended delay without the need for a user to separately 12 :18 :37 4 described? 12:18 :37 = 4 enter a command for that? 12:18 :3 7 5 A. Yes. 12:18:3 5 A. If you run the script there's no need to 12 :18:37 6 Q . Were there any other Magma products .where dike . 12 :1B :37 6 separately enter a command, yes . 12 :18 :37 7 could perform adjustment of delays? 32 :18137 7 Q. If the user was to enter a command separately 12 :18:37 8 A . I'm not sure . Many of the Magma i%oductS'are 12 :1$ :37 8 to determine the initial delay, what was the name of 12 :18:37 9 a matter of licensing where commands urned:on and 12:18 :37 9 that command? 12 :18 :37 10 off in the same executable . There mayN be- r licees 12 :18 :37 1 0 A. I think it was something like run prepare 12 :18 :37 11 with other product names that ti[ prt`te 12 :18 :37 11 life. 12 :18 :37 12 features. 12 :18 :37 12 Q. Are you aware that another aspect of the 12 :18 :3 7 13 Q. Which Magma products that you're familiar 12 :18 :37 13 constant delay inventions that you conceived at $ynopsys 12 :18 :37 14 with enabled the setti 3 of an initial ,intended delay? 12 :18 :37 14 was the calculation of net weights in the context of 12 :18 :37 15 A. Which produtyou said? . 12 :18 :37 15 constant delay? 12 :18 :3 7 16 Q. Yes 12 :18 :37 16 A. Yes. 12 :18 :37 17 A. Or which commEinds? 12 :18 :37 17 Q. How did the blast fusion product calculate 12 :18 :37 18 Q. Which products77' 12 :18 :37 18 net weights? 12 :18 :3 7 19 A . Again , th .a censing issue , is 12 :18 :37 19 A. By a forward reversal through the net list . 12 :18 :37 20 something I didn't really pay that much attention to 12 :18:37 20 Q. What is the purpose for the calculation of 12 :18 :37 21 where It was all in the same executable , but I think 12 :18 :37 21 net weights in the Magma tools? 12 :18 :37 22 blast fusion could do that . 12 :18 :37 22 MR. OBSTLER: Hold on . There's a couple of 12:18 :37 23 Q . And how did blast fusion set the initial 12 :18 :37 23 -- I would like all of the testimony regarding blast 12 :18 :37 24 intended delays ? 12 :18 :37 24 fusion to be marked as level of confidentiality, we're 12 :18 :37 25 A. It did a library analysis based on first 12 :18 :37 2 5 not sure-what it is . But it certainly is proprietary to 12 :18:37 436 438

17 (Pages 435 to 438) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 bO5bd8eO-251 c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

I Magma . That portion of the transcript we would like 12 :18 :37 1 be kept confidential under the protective order subject 12 :18 :37 f 2 marked confidential at this point and designated as 12 :18 :37 2 to later motions . 12 :18 :37 3 attorneys' eyes only . 12 :18 :37 3 In an attempt to, in good faith, to resolve 12 :18 :37 4 Also, if we go off the record for just one 12 :18 :37 4 this, I spoke to Mr. Edelman outside, and my 12 :18 :37 5 second . 12 :18 :37 5 understanding was there was a request for 24 to 48 hours 12 :18 :37 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going off the record. The 12 :18 :37 6 and that he would not hold up the process, and that 12 :18 :37 7 time now is approximately 5 :47 p .m . 12 :18 :37 7 seemed reasonable and we have made the offer that we're 12 :18 :37 8 (Recess .) 12 :18 :37 8 prepared to waft until close of business on Friday to 12 :18 :37 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : Going back on the record . 12 :18 :37 9 read the transcript as it exists now and let the parties 12 :18 :37 10 The time now is approximately 5 :56 p .m . 12 :18 :37 10 designate their respective portions which they want to 12 :18 :37 it A . I think net weights were intended to be used 12 :18 :37 11 remain designated, but we are not prepared to allow 12 :18 :37 12 by mapping and placement as an indication that could be 12 :18 :37 12 Synopsys to make a carte blanche designation of the 12 :18 :37 13 used to optimize area, cell area . To my knowledge, I'm 12 :18 :37 13 entire transcript to hold it for 20 or 30 days, 12 :18 :37 14 sure placement no longer used net weights, although it 12 :18 :37 14 especially in light after the publication of the 12 :18 :37 15 once did, and I don't know if mapping still uses net 12 :18 :37 15 declaration and the filing of the summary judgment 12 :18 :37 16 weights, but I don't think so . So I think the use of 12 :18 :37 16 motion . And I believe counsel for the third party may 12 :1 .8 :37 17 net weights was abandoned . 12 :18 :37 17 want to be heard on this. 1 :18 :3 7 18 Q . At one point the Magma tools used the 12 :18 :37 18 MR. BULCHIS : Insofar as we are not a partyw 42 :18 :37 J 19 calculation of net weights when you were there? 12 :18 :37 19 to any agreement between Synopsys and74lagma apd ale not 12 :18 :37 20 A . We attempted to use them in the Magma tools, 12 :18 :37 20 subject to the jurisdiction of the court, we don't think 12 :18 :3 7 21 but the results were not good . 12 :18 :37 21 anything Is confidential except the portion of the12 :18 :37 22 MR . EDELMAN : So I guess the parties have 12 :18 :37 22 transcript that was bound separately and the documents 12 :18 :37 23 hopefully some quick statements to put on the record . 12;18 :37 23 that were discussed therefits 12 :18 :3 7 24 There are -- well, there's really only one issue that ] 12 :18 :37 24 MR . EDELMAN : And hopefully I can say this In 12 :18 :37 25 think the parties need to get on the record . It is 12 :18 :37 2 5 a way that Is not controversial , arid without saying 12 :18 :37 439 44 1

pertaining to the designation of the transcript . 12 :18 :37 1 anything more than this I think everyone agrees that 12 :18 :37 2 Synopsys's position is that under the protective order 12 :18 :37 2 this deposition is not yet concluded and on that subject 12 :18 :37 3 as negotiated by the parties Synopsys is entitled to 12 :18 :37 3 the parties will meet and confer further . 12 :18 :3 7 4 designate the entire transcript and thereafter spend the 12 :18 :37 '9 MR. OBSTLER: That's correct, And Magma 12:18:37 5 time it needs to go question by question and determine 12 :18 :37` 5 wishes to'preserve its right to do redirect, and we 12 :18 :37 6 which question is deserving of which level of 12 :18 :37 understand that Synopsys has a few more hours of direct 12 :18 :37 7 confidentiality or no confidentiality . 12 : 1&37 ., 7 rcrpss-examination of whatever testimony is on this, and 12 :18 :37 8 So Synopsys, pursuant to the protective 12 :18 :37 8 we will work to try to get this done in the next few 12 :18:3 7 9 order, designated the deposition . There was nothing 12:18:37 9 weeks, and we'll meet and confer to try to get a date . 12 :18 :37 10 that Synopsys heard in the court's ruling yesterday, on 12:18 :37 10 MR . EDELMAN : I think it is the understanding 12 :18 :37 11 this subject, and therefore that's the way the recO`(tt 12--4-837 .1 11 of both Synopsys and Magma that this deposition is 12 :18 :37 12 stands. 12 beginning, and there will have to be many more days of 12 :18 :37 1 3 In addition to that, I would note that there'. 12 :18:3 7 13 deposition testimony after some additional pre-trial 12 :18 :3 7 1 14 is no sense of urgency on the Magma $Ide that is 12 :18 :37 14 discovery has been made, but the understanding that has 12 :18:37 15 legitimate in this dispute . Magma's need for better . 12:18 :37 15 just been stated by Mr . Obstler is relating to the 12 :18 :3 7 16 press relations is not a justifiable need to cFJartr e ;: +1e, 12 :18 :37 16 deposition under this notice. 12:18 :37 17 protocol and procedure the parties have~agreed to under 12 :18 :37 17 MR. OBSTLER: I don't know which notice . I'm 12 :18:37 18 the protective order . 12 :18 :37 18 sorry, which notice are you referring to? You're 12 :18 :37 19 MR. OBSTLER : Magma's p is that we 12 :18 :37 19 talking about the Magma notice? 12:18 :3 7 20 raised this issue yesterday and we put on the record 12 :18 :37 20 MR . EDELMAN : Yes. 12:18 :3 7 2 1 with the magistrate judge the reasons why we believed 12 :18 :37 21 MR . OBSTLER: Yes, but that we understand 12 :18 :37 22 the designation wasn't proper and not in good faith and 12 :18 :37 22 that Synopsys wants to take Dr. van Ginneken's 12 :18 :37 23 an abuse of the protective order. We believe that the 12:18 :37 23 deposition and has noticed that, and we understand that 12 :18 :37 24 magistrate judge ruled that only those portions related 12 :18 :37 24 Dr. van Ginneken is going to be made available by four 12 :18 :37 25 to the documents that were marked confidential were to 12 :18 :37 25 subsequent depositions, correct? 12 :18 :37 440 44 2

18 (Pages 439 to 442)

EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b05bdBe0-251 c-43c3-be01-f2b2d7f465ea CONFIDENTIAL

1 MR. EDELMAN : (Nodding head). 12:18:37 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER : This adjourns the 12 :18 :3 7 3 deposition of Lukas van Ginneken . The time now is 12 :18 :37 4 approximately 5 :56 p .m . This is the end of tape No. 3 . 12 :18 :37 5 Going off the record . 12:18:37 6 (End of confidential session .) 12 :18 :37 7 (Deposition adjourned at 6 :00 p .m .) 12 :18 :3 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 443

c:4[:

ti

. . . _ .. ., ~. . - :., ., ..- ..~ ...... -a-..~y... .-. ...--.. ...a...... :...... _>. ..» ... a: .. ..~ . _ . .-...... _ . - ..: ....z.a .~. .g,..a_ .mn..e.. .e_. ..~...... -aaru .,rvias.-.,,sw x 19 (Page 443) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 b05bd8e0 -251c-430- be01 -f2b2d7f465ea EXHIBIT B

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 2 of 35

1 assigned to Synopsys . Magma's innovative products, however, are fundamentally

2 different from the technology claimed in the '1 14 Patent. Thus, Magma does not infringe 3 the 11 14 Patent. 4 2. Magma - not Synopsys - is the assignee and the sole and exclusive 5 owner of the other two patents asserted here, U.S . Patents Nos . 6,453,446 ('the `446 6 Patent") and 6,725,438 ("the `438 Patent") (together, "the Magma Patents") . In a 7 complaint devoid of any facts, Synopsys claims ownership of the Magma Patents based

8 entirely on the conclusory allegation that Dr. Lukas van Ginneken created the inventions

9 disclosed in the Magma Patents while he was employed at Synopsys .

1 0 3. The truth is far different . As detailed in the factual allegations below, Dr. van Ginneken developed the inventions disclosed in the Magma Patents after he co- founded Magma in 1997 . Drawing on his superlative academic background and extensive industry experience, Dr . van Ginneken created these inventions without using proprietary or confidential information from Synopsys . Thus, Synopsys' claim of ownership to the Magma Patents is groundless .

1 6 4. Synopsys' interest in Magma's technology is a recent transformation. 1 7 From its beginnings, Magma has described its novel technology to Synopsys during

1 8 various meetings . Although Synopsys professed interest in Magma's talented engineering 1 9 team, Synopsys repeatedly, both in public and in private, denigrated Magma's technology .

20 Not once during these discussions did Synopsys ever assert any ownership interest in that 2 1 technology. 22 5. During the past two years, however, Magma has become a

23 competitive threat to Synopsys . Prompted by this change in the competitive landscape,

24 Synopsys, which holds a dominant position in many EDA markets, has launched a

25 campaign to discredit Magma in the eyes of Magma's customers and investors . As part o 26 this campaign, Synopsys filed this baseless action and has tried to use it to disrupt

27 Magma's relationships with its customers. As the facts demonstrate, however, Magma

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 2 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 5 of 3 5

1 allegation that the document attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint is a true and correct

2 copy of a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement between Lukas van

3 Ginneken and Synopsys, and on that basis denies that allegation . Magma denies all the 4 remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6 . 5 18. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 7 .

6 19. Magma admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of 7 paragraph 8 . Magma denies each and every allegation contained in the second sentence o

8 paragraph 8 .

9 20. Magma admits that Synopsys is listed as the assignee on the face o

1 0 U.S. Patent No. 6,378,114 and tat Lukas van Ginneken is a named inventor of this

11 patent. Magma admits that a true and correct copy of the '1 14 Patent as issued by the

12 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B . Magma

13 alleges it is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

1 4 the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9, and on that basis denies each and

1 5 every allegation contained therein.

1 6 21. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 10,

1 7 except that Magma admits that U .S . Patent No. 6,453,446 was issued to Magma on

1 8 September 17, 2002 .

1 9 22. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 11,

20 except that Magma admits that U .S. Patent No. 6,725,438 was issued to Magma on April

2 1 20, 2004, and that a true and correct copy of the `438 Patent as issued by the U .S. Patent

22 and Trademark Office is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D.

23 23 . Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 12 .

24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIO N

25 (PATENT INFRINGEMENT)

26 24. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 13 .

27 25. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 14 .

28 26. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 15 . MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 5 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 6 of 3 5

1 27. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 16 . 2 28. Magma denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 17 . 3 29. In response to the prayer for relief, Magma denies each and every 4 allegation in the prayer and, further, Magma specifically denies that Synopsys is entitled 5 to any of the relief requested in the Complaint or any relief whatsoever, specifically 6 denies that Synopsys is entitled to preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, specifically 7 denies that Synopsys has been damaged by the acts of Magma in any amount whatsoever,

8 specifically denies that Synopsys is entitled to an accounting for its alleged damages, 9 specifically denies that Synopsys is entitled to a reasonable royalty, specifically denies

1 0 that Synopsys is entitled to any award of treble, punitive, or exemplary damages,

1 1 specifically denies that Synopsys is entitled to its costs, expenses or reasonable attorneys'

12 fees, specifically denies that Synopsys is entitled to any award of interest, and specifically

1 3 denies that the Court should impose a constructive trust for Synopsys' benefit .

1 4

1 5 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 6 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLICABLE TO THE `114 PATENT

1 7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1 8 30. Magma does not infringe, or contribute to or induce the infringement

1 9 of, the `114 Patent .

20 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

21 31. Synopsys lacks standing to assert the `114 Patent for failure to join

22 all joint owners .

23 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

24 32. Magma cannot be liable for infringing the `114 Patent because

25 Magma is licensed under the '1 14 Patent.

26 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

27 33. The `114 Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy the conditions for

28 patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code . MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 6 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Case 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 7 of 3 5

1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLICABLE TO THE MAGMA PATENTS

2 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E 3 34. Synopsys lacks standing to assert the `446 Patent because Magma 4 owns all right, title, and interest in and to the 1446 Patent . 5 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 35. In the alternative, if Magma does not exclusively own the `446

7 Patent, Synopsys lacks standing to assert the `446 Patent for failure to join all joint 8 owners.

9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

1 0 36. In the alternative, if Magma does not own the `446 Patent, Magma

11 does not infringe, or contribute to or induce the infringement of, the `446 Patent .

12 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

13 37. In the alternative, if Magma does not own the `446 Patent, Magma

1 4 cannot be liable for infringement of the `446 Patent because Magma is licensed under the

15 `446 Patent.

16 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

17 38. In the alternative, if Magma does not own the `446 Patent, the `446

1 8 Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in Title

19 35 of the United States Code.

20 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21 39. Synopsys lacks standing to assert the `438 Patent because Magma

22 owns all right, title, and interest in and to the `438 Patent .

23 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

24 40. In the alternative, if Magma does not exclusively own the `438

25 Patent, Synopsys lacks standing to asse rt the `438 Patent for failure to join all joint

26 owners.

27

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 7 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Case 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 8 of 3 5

1 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 41. In the alternative, if Magma does not own the `438 Patent, Magma 3 does not infringe, or contribute to or induce the infringement of, the `438 Patent. 4 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 42. In the alternative, if Magma does not own the `438 Patent, Magma

6 cannot be liable for infringement of the `438 Patent because Magma is licensed under the

7 `438 Patent. 8 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 43. In the alternative, if Magma does not own the `438 Patent, the `438 Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code . FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

1 3 44. In the alternative, Synopsys' claim to ownership of the Magma

14 Patents is barred under 35 U .S.C . § 261 .

1 5 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLICABLE TO ALL PATENTS-IN-SUIT

1 6 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

1 7 45. Synopsys' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches .

1 8 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

1 9 46. Synopsys' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver .

20 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

2 1 47. Synopsys' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel .

22 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS E

23 48. Synopsys' claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations .

24

25 MAGMA'S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SYNOPSY S

26 For its counterclaims against Synopsys, defendant and counterclaimant

27 Magma alleges on knowledge as to its own conduct and on information and belief as to all

28 other matters, as follows : MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 8 Case No . C04-03923 MMC

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 9 of 3 5

1 JURISDICTION 2 49. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 3 5

3 U.S.C. § 100, et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction is therefore proper in this Court pursuant

4 to 28 U .S.C . §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367(a) and pursuant to the Federal Declaratory 5 Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C . §§ 2201-02 . This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 6 Defendant's counterclaims arising under the state law pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1367(a) 7 because these claims are so related to the parties' claims and counterclaims under federal

8 law that they form part of the same case and/or controversy and derive from a common

9 nucleus of operative fact.

10 PARTIES

1 1 50. Magma is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

1 2 State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California .

13 Magma provides EDA software products and related services .

14 51. Synopsys is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

1 5 the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Mountain View,

1 6 California. Synopsys provides EDA software products and related services .

1 7 VENUE

1 8 52. Synopsys transacts business in this judicial district, including the sale

1 9 and offering for sale of its products, and Synopsys has sufficient contacts with this judicial

20 district to subject itself to the jurisdiction of this Court . Moreover, by bringing its

21 complaint against Magma in this Court, Synopsys consented to the Court's jurisdiction .

22 Personal jurisdiction and venue are therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U .S.C . §§

23 1391 and 1400(b). 24 FACTS RELEVANT TO MAGMA'S COUNTERCLAIMS

25 ELECTRONIC DESIGN AUTOMATION

26 53. EDA companies develop computer programs that are used to design,

27 manufacture, and test integrated circuits ("ICs" or "chips") . These programs are crucial

28 to the growth of the semiconductor industry. MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 9 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

r, ase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 10 of 3 5

I 54. It would be impossible to design modern ICs without advanced EDA 2 software . Feature density, speed, efficiency, and functional capacity of ICs continue to

3 increase at a dramatic rate. Current generation ICs hold tens of millions of transistors and 4 have feature widths of 130 nanometers (billionths of a meter) and below . ICs such as

5 microprocessors can execute hundreds of millions of instructions every second . 6 55. IC designers use EDA software to translate high level descriptions of

7 an IC into the basic components that will be fabricated on the chip . IC designers also use

8 EDA software to create a detailed physical layout of the chip, precisely locating within the 9 chip's boundary each of the components and the wires that interconnect them . This

1 0 physical layout is used to create the mask that is used to fabricate the circuits that make up II a chip . Because a modern IC comprises millions of basic components and wires, the

1 2 design process requires extraordinarily powerful EDA software to ensure that the final IC

1 3 layout meets the designer's specifications .

1 4 56. The process of translating an IC design from a high level description

1 5 to a physical layout is not merely a conversion of the design from one representation to

16 another. At various stages, EDA software optimizes the design in order, for example, to

1 7 improve the chip's performance, reduce the chip's size, or decrease the chip's power

1 8 consumption. These optimizations are critical to the overall design process .

1 9 57. Developers of EDA software - such as Synopsys and Magma -

20 compete with each other based on the quality of the optimizations offered by their

2 1 products . In competitive "benchmarks" of EDA products, customers generally choose

22 the software that produces the best results while requiring less time and fewer engineers .

23 THE INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PROCES S

24 58. The design process for an IC may be divided into two basic pa rts :

25 "front-end" design tasks, referred to as "logic synthesis," and "back end" design tasks,

26 referred to as "physical design."

27 59. Logic Synthesis . Logic synthesis refers to the translation of high

28 level descriptions of the functions that the IC must perform into basic logical operations . MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAIN T AND COUNTERCLAIMS 10 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Case 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 11 of 3 5

I The high level descriptions, referred to as register transfer level ("RTL") specifications,

2 can be written directly by a design engineer or can be generated by a software program . 3 In the logic synthesis phase, EDA software tools conve rt the RTL specifications into an

4 interconnected set of logic gates . (A logic gate performs a simple logical function, such 5 as comparing two signals and producing a result .) The tools produce a data file known as

6 a "netlist" that describes the logic gates and their interconnections . The design must be

7 "mapped" to an IC manufacturer's "cell library," which is made up of pre -designed 8 groups of transistors that perform the functions of the gates . The logic synthesis stage

9 typically includes timing analysis to determine approximately how fast the IC will run .

1 0 60. Physical Design. Physical design uses the mapped netlist produced

II by the logic synthesis base to determine the actual physical location within the chip's

12 area of all the transistors that make up the cells . The physical design process also will

13 designate the actual routes of the wires that will connect the cells on the IC . Timing

14 analysis also can be performed in the physical design phase . The result of physical design

1 5 is a detailed layout that is used to fabricate the IC.

1 6 61. A fundamental problem in EDA is the separation of logic synthesis

1 7 and physical design. The logic synthesis phase produces a netlist that is used to drive

18 physical design . This netlist is the result of choices and optimizations made without

19 complete knowledge of the physical placement and routing of cells. This can produce a

20 final design that is significantly less than optimal . For example, a design that appears to

2 1 satisfy the timing requirements for the IC during the logic synthesis phase may not satisfy

22 those requirements once the physical design process is completed and actual electrical

23 paths are determined. Such a result may require a repetition of the logic synthesis phase

24 to create a new netlist . Iterating between logic synthesis and physical design in a

25 repetitive search for a satisfactory result may consume significant time and may never

26 produce a solution close to the optimal layout . For these reasons, integrating the steps of

27 logic synthesis and physical design has long been a goal of EDA tool developers .

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 11 Case No. C04 -03923 MMC

Pase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 12 of 3 5

1 DR. LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 2 62. Lukas van Ginneken, a luminary in the EDA field, graduated cum

3 laude in electrical engineering from Eindhoven University of Technology in the 4 Netherlands in 1984. He received a Ph.D. degree from Eindhoven University in electrical

5 engineering in 1989 . Dr. van Ginneken 's Ph.D. dissertation relates to the field of physical

6 design, and in particular to the application of stepwise refinement to layout design . In this 7 work, he presented automatic algorithms to solve various physical design problems . Dr.

8 van Ginneken has authored or co-authored numerous research papers on logic synthesis 9 and physical design, and he has been granted several patents in the EDA field .

1 0 63. From 1989 to 1995, Dr. van Ginneken worked at IBM's T .J. Watson

1 1 Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and at IBM's Somerset Design Center

12 in Austin, Texas . During his tenure at IBM, Dr. van Ginneken worked on the problem of

13 integrating logic synthesis with physical design as well as improving optimizations

14 within logic synthesis and physical design . For example, Dr. van Ginneken co-authored

1 5 the paper "Timing Verification and Optimization for the PowerPC Processor Family,"

1 6 published in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Design in

17 October 1994 . This paper discusses a timing optimizer and describes a method for

18 automatically deriving timing constraints.

19 64. While at IBM, Dr . van Ginneken also developed a fundamental

20 algorithm for the placement of buffers in the pathways between cells . This work is

2 1 presented in the article "Buffer Placement in Distributed RC-tree Networks for Minimal

22 Elmore Delay," published in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Circuits

23 and Systems, May 1990, and is widely known today simply as "van Ginneken's

24 algorithm."

25 65. By the time Dr. van Ginneken left IBM, his work in the area of

26 physical design and logic synthesis included the following papers :

27

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 12 Case No . C04-03923 MMC

Case 3:04-cv-03923 - MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 13 of 35

I (a) "Efficient orthonormality testing for synthesis with pass transistor selectors," by M.R.C.M. Berkelaar and 2 L. van Ginneken, accepted at the Inte rnational Workshop on Logic Synthesis, June 1995 . 3 (b) "In the driver's seat of BooleDozer," by D. Brand and 4 R.F. Damiano, L . van Ginneken, A.D . Drumm, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Design, pp . 518-521, Boston, 5 Oct. 10-12, 1994 .

6 (c) "Grammar - based optimization of synthesis scenarios," by A. Kuehlmann and L . van Ginneken, in : Proc. Int. 7 Conf. on Computer Design, pp . 20-25, Boston, Oct. 10- 12,1994. 8 (d) "Tuning of logic synthesis scenarios," by L . van 9 Ginneken and A . Kuehlmann, Workshop Notes of the Int. Workshop on logic synthesis, paper Plc, Tahoe 1 0 City, May 23-26, 1993 .

II (e) "Fanin ordering in multi-slot timing," by L . van Ginneken, Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Design, pp . 1 2 44-47, Cambridge, Oct . 11 - 14, 1992 .

1 3 (f) "The complexity of adaptive annealing," by R.H.J.M. Often and L. van Ginneken, Proc . Int. Conf. on 1 4 Computer Design, pp . 404-407, Cambridge, Sept. 17- 19,1990. 1 5 (g) "Optimal slicing of plane point placements," by L. van 1 6 Ginneken and R.H.J.M. Otten, Proc. European Design Automation Con£, pp . 322-336, Glasgow, March 12- 1 7 15,1990.

1 8 (h) "The annealing algorithm," by R .H.J.M. Otten and L . van Ginneken, ISBN 07923-9022-9, Boston : Kluwer, 1 9 1989 .

20 (i) "The predictor-adaptor paradigm - automation of custom layout by flexible design," by L . van Ginneken, 21 Ph.D. thesis, ISBN 90-9002703-3, Eindhoven, 1989 .

22 (j) "Doubly folded transistor matrix layout," by L . van Ginneken and J.T.J. van Eijndhoven, A .H.C.M. 23 Brouwers, Digest Int. Conf. on Computer Aided Design, Santa Clara, Nov. 7- 10, 1988 . 24 (k) "Stop criteria in simulated annealing," by R.H.J.M. 25 Otten and L . van Ginneken, Proc. Int. Con£ on Computer Design, pp . 549-552, Port Chester, Oct. 3-5, 26 1988.

27 (1) "An inner loop criterion for simulated annealing," by L . van Ginneken and R.H.J.M. Otten, Physics letters A, 28 130:429435, 1988. MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 13 Case No . C04-03923 MMC

ease 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 14 of 35

1 (m) "Soft Macro Cell generation by two dimensional folding," by L. van Ginneken and J .T.J. van 2 Eijndhoven, P.R.M. van Te effelen, T .J. Deckers, Proc. Int. Symp . on Circuits and Systems, pp. 727-730, 3 Espoo, June 1988 .

4 (n) "Gridless routing of general floor plans," by L. van Ginneken and J.A.G. Jess, Digest Int. Conf. on 5 Computer Aided Design, pp. 30- 33, Santa Clara, Nov . 9-12,1987 . 6 (o) "Wire planning for stackable designs," by R .K. 7 Brayton, C .L. Chen, J.A.G. Jess, R.H.J.M. Otten and L . van Ginneken, Proc . Int. Symp. on VLSI technology, 8 pp . 269-273, Taipeh, May 13-15, 1987 .

(p) "Global wiring for custom layout design," by L . van Ginneken and R.H.J.M. Otten, Proc. Int. Symp. on Circuits and Systems, pp . 207-208, Kyoto, June 5-7, 1985 . (q) "Floor plan design using simulated annealing," by R.H.J.M. Otten and L . van Ginneken, Digest Int . Conf. on Computer Aided Design, pp . 96-98, Santa Clara, 1 3 Nov, 1984.

14 (r) "Stepwise layout refinement," by L. van Ginneken and R.H.J.M. Often, Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Design, pp . 15 30-36, Port Chester, Oct. 8-11, 1984 .

16 66. In June of 1995, Dr . van Ginneken left IBM to join Synopsys . As the

1 7 foregoing list of papers reflects, when Dr . van Ginneken joined Synopsys he already 18 possessed a high degree of knowledge, skill, and expertise in logic synthesis, physical

19 design, and the integration of logic synthesis with physical design . At Synopsys, Dr. van 20 Ginneken continued to work on many of the problems and techniques that were the focus

2 1 of his research at IBM, including the integration of logic synthesis with physical design.'

22 Synopsys benefited not only from Dr . van Ginneken's talents, but also from the 23 knowledge and experience he had gained at IBM .

24 THE IBM-SYNOPSYS JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T

2 5 67. When Dr. van Ginneken joined Synopsys in 1995, IBM and 26 Synopsys were entering into a joint technology development agreement relating to EDA

27 ("the IBM- Synopsys Agreement") . Under the IBM-Synopsys Agreement, any inventions

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 14 Case No . C04 -03923 MMC

Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 15 of 3 5

1 that resulted from the work performed thereunder became the joint property of Synopsy s 2 and IBM. 3 68. The Synopsys engineers involved in this joint project included Dr. 4 van Ginneken, Narendra Shenoy, Robert Damiano, Tony Ma, and Mahesh Iyer . The IBM 5 engineers involved in this joint project included Prabhakar Kudva, Leon Stok, Tony 6 Drumm, and Andrew Sullivan . 7 69. On July 1, 1997, Synopsys filed a patent application based on this

8 joint project. The patent application named Dr . van Ginneken and Narendra Shenoy as

9 inventors. No IBM engineer was named on the patent application, despite the fact that 10 one or more IBM engineers also contributed in a significant way to the subject matter of

1 1 one or more of the patent claims . This application matured into the `114 Patent, issued 12 April 23, 2002 . Like the application, the issued `114 Patent names only Dr . van Ginneken 1 3 and Narendra Shenoy as inventors .

14 THE FOUNDING OF MAGM A 1 5 70. Lukas van Ginneken left Synopsys and joined Magma as one o

1 6 several founders in May 1997 . A central goal of the new company was to create advanced'

1 7 EDA software that effectively integrated logic synthesis with physical design . In addition'

1 8 to Dr. van Ginneken, Magma's founders included

1 9 (a) Rajeev Madhavan . Before co-founding Magma and becoming 20 its President and CEO, Mr. Madhavan already had been an entrepreneur in the EDA

2 1 industry. He had founded and served as the President and CEO of Ambit Design Systems, 22 Inc. ("Ambit"), the first credible competitor to Synopsys in logic synthesis, and had co-

23 founded LogicVision, a BIST supplier . Mr. Madhavan also had worked at Cadence

24 Design Systems, Inc. ("Cadence"), a leading EDA company. At Cadence, he led the 25 invention and development of the Verilog-A product .

26 (b) Hamid Savoj . Dr. Savoj, a renowned expert and innovator in 27 logic optimization, joined Magma in May 1997 as Principal Engineer . Dr. Savoj holds a

28 Ph.D . in electrical engineering and computer science (focusing on computer aided desig n MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 15 Case No . C04-03923 MMC Pase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10 /21/2004 Page 16 of 35

1 of VLSI) from the University of California, Berkeley . Before joining Magma, Dr. Savoj

2 was a senior member of the consulting staff at Cadence, where he developed state-of-the-

3 art algorithms for area and performance optimization of logic circuits . Dr. Savoj also has 4 co-authored numerous papers relating to logic synthesis .

5 (c) Karen Vahtra . Ms. Vahtra had worked for Synopsys and 6 Ambit before joining Magma . An expert in the application of static timing analysis, Ms .

7 Vahtra had co-authored papers on the integration of logic synthesis and physical design 8 before joining Magma .

9 71 . In addition to the founders, Magma assembled a talented group of

engineers known for their expertise in EDA and related fields . The engineers included : (a) Premal Buch. When he joined Magma, Dr . Buch was a Ph.D.

candidate in electrical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley . He had extensive research experience in logic synthesis and had worked for Cadence .

(b) Hardy Kwok-Shing Leung. When Hardy Leung joined Magma

15 he was a Ph.D. candidate in computer science (focusing on VLSI computer-aided design)

16 at the University of California, Los Angeles. He previously had worked for Cadence,

17 where he was a senior member of its technical staff and worked on global routing, clock'

1 8 routing, wire-sizing, and buffer insertion. He has co-authored several papers on routing .

19 (c) Hsiao-Ping Tseng. When he joined Magma, Dr. Tseng was a

20 Ph.D . candidate in electrical engineering at the University of Washington, Se attle, and had

2 1 co-authored numerous papers in EDA-related fields .

22 (d) Patrick Groeneveld. Before joining Magma, he was an

23 associate professor of electrical engineering at Delft University of Technology in the

24 Netherlands and specialized in CAD for VLSI .

25 (e) Joseph Hutt, Jr. Before joining Magma, Mr . Hutt had worked

26 for over 20 years as an electrical engineer for IBM . His responsibilities at IBM included

27 serving as program director for VLSI Design Systems .

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 16 Case No. C04 -03923 MMC

ase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 17 of 3 5

1 (f) Timothy Burks . When he joined Magma, Dr . Burks had

2 earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Michigan . He had worked 3 as an engineer for IBM. There, he was the architect and original developer of DeLTA 4 ("Device Level Timing Analysis"), a static transistor timing level analyzer for custom 5 CMOS circuits. 6 (g) Hong Cai. Dr. Cai, holder of a Ph.D. in electrical engineering

7 from Delft University of Technology, had worked for Synopsys as a senior member of its 8 technical staff before joining Magma . Dr. Cai also had authored or co-authored numerous 9 publications relating to IC routing .

1 0 (h) Robert Swanson . When Mr. Swanson joined Magma he had 1 1 almost ten years of IC design experience at IBM . He also has been granted several

1 2 semiconductor patents .

13 G) Raymond Nijssen. When he joined Magma, Raymond 14 Nijseen held an master's degree in electrical engineering from Eindhoven University . He

1 5 has been granted several IC patents . 1 6 72. The Magma engineering team also included Michel R .C.M. 1 7 Berkelaar, Manjit Borah, Cornelius A .J. van Eijk, and Eduard P . Huijbregts, all of whom

1 8 hold Ph.D .'s . 1 9 73. Magma undertook rigorous measures to ensure that its engineers did 20 not use or disclose at Magma any trade secret or other proprietary information derived 2 1 from their work at former employers . To this end, all Magma employees, including Dr .

22 van Ginneken, were required to execute a Proprietary Information and Inventions 23 Agreement. This agreement includes the following provision: 24 During my employment by [Magma] I will not improperly use or disclose any confidential information or trade secrets, if 25 any, of any former employer or any other person to whom I have an obligation of confidentiality, and I will not bring onto 26 the premises of [Magma] any unpublished documents or any property belonging to any former employer or any other 27 person to whom I have an obligation of confidentiality unless consented to in writing by that former employer or person . 28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 17 Case No . C04-03923 MMC

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 18 of 35

I 74. Magma took further precautions, including periodically archiving all

2 its source code. This archiving has continued to present .

3 75. Magma also retained outside counsel, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 4 LLP ("Orrick"), to perform intellectual property due diligence at Magma in late 1998 and

5 early 1999 . As part of this effo rt, Orrick engaged Dr. Marios Papaefthymiou to analyze 6 the provenance of Magma's source code. Dr. Papaefthymiou holds a Ph.D . in Electrical

7 Engineering and Computer Science from the Massachuse tts Institute of Technology. At

8 the time of the Magma due diligence, he was an Assistant Professor in the Depa rtment o

9 Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan .

10 76. As part of the due diligence, Dr . Papaefthymiou and Orrick attorneys

II interviewed the developers of Magma's code and confirmed that the developers had not

12 brought any confidential information to Magm a from any third party . In addition, Dr .

1 3 Papaefthymiou reviewed Magma's source code and interviewed its developers to ensure

14 that it had been developed independently at Magma without the use or incorporation of

1 5 any third-party intellectual prope rty. Based on this due diligence, Orrick concluded there

1 6 was no reason to believe that Magma had used or incorporated any intellectual prop erty o

1 7 third parties.

1 8 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAGMA PATENT S

19 77. At Magma, Dr. van Ginneken conceived of the inventions disclosed

20 and claimed in the Magma Patents. Dr. van Ginneken did not use any proprietary

21 information or trade secrets of Synopsys in creating those inventions, consistent with Dr.

22 van Ginneken's execution of the Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement with

23 Magma. Instead, the inventions were improvements and extensions of ma tters already in

24 the public domain.

25 78. The inventions disclosed in the Magma Patents include novel

26 applications of the concepts of "constant delay" and "logical effort." Delay refers to the

27 time it takes for a cell to carry out its function and to communicate its result to the next

28 cell. As the demand or "load" on a cell increases, the delay increases. Under the concept MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 18 Case No. C04-03923 MMC Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRB Document 50 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 20 of 36

ase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 19 of 3 5

1 of "constant delay," however, each cell is modeled as having a delay that does not chang

k3ase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 20 of 3 5

1 delay. 2 82. The logical effort concept is extended in "Generalized Delay

3 Optimization of Resistive Interconnections Through an Extension of Logical Effort," by 4 Kumar Venkat, from Proceedings of ISCAS 1993, pp. 2106-2109 ("the Venkat paper") .

5 The Venkat paper describes an extension of the logical effort concept that accommodates

6 the resistance of wires in addition to their capacitance . 7 83. In creating the inventions disclosed in the Magma Patents, Dr . van

8 Ginneken drew from the extensive work available in the public domain, including the 9 publications listed above, and relied on his background and experience in EDA . The

1 0 novel aspects of the inventions were conceived entirely at Magma .

1 1 84. On December 24, 1997, Magma filed with the PTO the provisional

1 2 patent application that ultimately resulted in the Magma Patents .

1 3 85. On September 17, 2002, the PTO issued the `446 Patent, entitled

1 4 "Timing Closure Methodology ." Dr. van Ginneken is named as the sole inventor and

15 Magma is the assignee .

16 86. On April 26, 2004, the PTO issued the `438 Patent, entitled "Timing

17 Closure Methodology ." Dr. van Ginneken is named as the sole inventor and Magma is

1 8 the assignee.

19 SYNOPSYS' LACK OF INTEREST IN MAGMA'S TECHNOLOG Y

20 87. Through the contributions of Dr . van Ginneken and other members o

21 its engineering staff, Magma developed the concept of fixed timing . The fixed timing'

22 methodology implements a constant delay model within an automatic tool that integrates

23 timing and placement into a single-pass design flow from RTL specifications to layout .

24 This methodology establishes and optimizes circuit speeds prior to physical design .

25 During physical design, the circuit design is refined to achieve a final timing that is very

26 close to the circuit speed previously established Magma became the first EDA company

27 to offer this integrated approach .

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 20 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 21 of 35

I 88. The fixed timing approach eliminates the timing iterations that exist 2 in conventional design flows, and thus can significantly reduce the time it takes to design

3 and produce deep submicron integrated circuits . Given the importance of time-to-market

4 in the semiconductor industry, EDA software that accelerates the IC design process can

5 provide a significant competitive advantage to chip designers. This technology has 6 enabled Magma to make competitive inroads against companies such as Synopsys . 7 89. That Magma's software employs a fixed timing methodology was no

8 secret to Synopsys, because Magma repeatedly discussed the concept with Synopsys . For

example, in February 1998, representatives of Synopsys met with representatives of

Magma to explore the possibility of Magma being merged into or acquired by Synopsys. At the meeting, Magma informed Synopsys that it was developing a fixed timing methodology. In response, Synopsys asserted that Magma's approach would not work .

13 90. Later in 1998, Synopsys and Magma representatives met again. At

1 4 the meeting, Magma showed its fixed timing design methodology to Synopsys . Once

1 5 again, Synopsys was not interested in Magma's technology . Instead, Synopsys' Chairman 1 6 and Chief Executive Officer Aart de Geus began telling investment analysts that Magma's 1 7 fixed timing technology was a failure .

1 8 91. In the summer of 2001, Magma made a presentation about its

1 9 technology at a meeting sponsored by investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston. Senior 20 Synopsys management, including Dr . de Geus, attended. Magma's presentation featured

2 1 its fixed timing methodology as central to its proprietary technology . Synopsys yet again

22 expressed skepticism about Magma's approach: Dr. de Geus argued that fixed timing did 23 not work.

24 92. On November 20, 2001, Magma announced its initial public offering . 2 5 Magma stressed the importance of its fixed timing methodology to its products :

26 "Magma's proprietary FixedTiming(l methodology and single data model architecture are

27 the technical foundation for Magma's Blast Fusion and Blast Chip products . The 28 FixedTiming methodology allows Magma's products to reduce the timing closur e MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 21 Case No . C04-03923 MMC

Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 22 of 3 5

1 iterations that are often required between the front-end and back-end processes in

2 conventional integrated circuit design flows . The single data model contains all of the 3 logical and physical information about the chip design . "

4 THE IBM-MAGMA PATENT LICENS E 5 93. On March 24, 2004, Magma and IBM entered into a patent license

6 agreement. Under this license agreement, Magma is broadly licensed to all patents owned 7 by IBM that were filed before a specified date .

8 94. As explained above, by operation of law and pursuant to the IBM-

9 Synopsys Agreement, IBM is an owner of the '1 14 Patent. Thus, Magma is licensed to

1 0 the '1 14 Patent pursuant to the Magma-IBM patent license agreement. 1 1 SYNOPSYS' CLAIMS AGAINST MAGM A

12 95. On July 1, 2004, Magma wrote to Synopsys, requesting that

13 Synopsys confirm whether certain Magma patents (including the two Magma Patents at

1 4 issue here) were applicable to Synopsys' gain-based delay model or any other Synopsys

1 5 design solution. Over two months passed with no word from Synopsys .

1 6 96. On September 17, 2004, Synopsys finally responded by filing this

1 7 lawsuit, which alleges that Magma itself infringes the Magma Patents as well as the `114

1 8 Patent.

19 97. Magma does not infringe the `114 Patent because the `114 Patent's

20 claims are fundamentally different from the innovative technology underlying Magma's

2 1 products . Among other reasons that Magma does not infringe this patent, Magma's

22 products, unlike the requirements of every claim of the '114 Patent, do not `bstablish[ ] a

23 convergence criterion based on a partition size ." Magma's single-pass approach also 24 distinguishes its technology from the iterative approaches of the `114 Patent.

25 98. Moreover, the work that led to the development of the inventions

26 claimed in the `114 Patent was part of the joint project between IBM and Synopsys to

27 which IBM engineers made significant contributions . By operation of law and pursuant to

28 the IBM- Synopsys Agreement, IBM is a co-owner of the `114 Patent . Because IBM is a MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 22 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Case 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10 /21/2004 Page 23 of 35

I co-owner of the '1 14 Patent, Synopsys' failure to name IBM as a plaintiff in this suit is

2 fatal to Synopsys' claim for infringement of the '1 14 Patent. Magma is also licensed to

3 the ' 1 14 Patent and therefore cannot be liable for infringement of that patent as a matter o 4 law.

5 99. Synopsys also cannot assert the Magma Patents against Magma . As 6 explained above, Dr . van Ginneken conceived of the inventions claimed in the Magma

7 Patents at Magma, not at Synopsys . Thus, Magma - not Synopsys - owns the Magma

8 Patents . 9 100. In the alternative, if Synopsys could somehow establish that Dr . van

1 0 Ginneken conceived the inventions disclosed in the Magma Patents while he was at Synopsys, Magma could not be liable for infringing the patents as a matter of law. If Dr.

1 2 van Ginneken developed the inventions at Synopsys, that work would have occurred as

1 3 part of the joint project between IBM and Synopsys to which IBM engineers made

14 significant contributions . Thus, by operation of law and pursuant to the IBM-Synopsys

1 5 Agreement, IBM would be an owner of the Magma Patents . Accordingly, Synopsys could

1 6 not assert the patents against Magma without naming IBM as a plaintiff, and Magma

1 7 would be licensed under them pursuant to its patent license agreement with IBM . Thus,

18 Magma cannot be liable for infringing the Magma Patents .

19 SYNOPSYS' FALSE STATEMENTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITIO N

20 101. Synopsys' misconduct is not limited to filing this baseless lawsuit .

2 1 Synopsys is engaging in a campaign with the press and with Magma's customers and

22 competitors to spread false and misleading statements about Magma and its products .

23 102. On the day it filed this lawsuit, Synopsys issued a press release

24 stating that "After a thorough review, Synopsys has determined that it is not infringing the

25 cited patents, and further determined Synopsys rightfully owns the two van Ginneken

26 patents . Accordingly, Synopsys today filed suit in Federal cou rt against Magma under the

27 van Ginneken patents to enforce its rights as the owner of the inventions and to bar

28 Magma from practicing Synopsys' technologies ." MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 23 Case No. C04-03923 MMC Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 24 of 3 5

1 103. These and other false statements by Synopsys about Magma and its 2 technology have begun to negatively affect Magma's relationships with its customers and 3 its reputation in the marketplace . Synopsys has informed customers that Magma has 4 stolen trade secrets and that Synopsys owns the technology which underlies Magma's 5 products. In response, Magma has had to make significant and extraordinary efforts to 6 maintain customer relationships as a result of the uncertainty and doubt that Synopsys' 7 statements have created in the market . Magma has had to visit customers to correct 8 Synopsys' false statements and persuade the customers not to take their business elsewhere despite Synopsys' false statements . FIRST COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF (NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `114 PATENT ) 104. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 1 3 previous paragraphs.

14 105. On April 23, 2002, the PTO issued the `114 Patent, entitled "Method 1 5 for the Physical Placement of an Integrated Circuit Adaptive to Netlist Changes," upon an 1 6 application filed in the names of Narendra Shenoy and Lukas van Ginneken . 1 7 106. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the '114 Patent. 1 8 107. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 19 of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 20 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `114 Patent and 2 1 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof.

22 108. Magma does not infringe, or contribute to or induce the infringement 23 of, the `114 Patent .

24 SECOND COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 25 (INVALIDITY OF THE `114 PATENT) 26 109. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 27 previous paragraphs .

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 24 Case No . C04-03923 MMC Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 25 of 3 5

1 110. On April 23, 2002, the PTO issued the '114 Patent, entitled "Method 2 for the Physical Placement of an Integrated Circuit Adaptive to Netlist Changes," upon an 3 application filed in the names of Narendra Shenoy and Lukas van Ginneken. 4 111. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `114 Patent . 5 112. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 6 of 28 U.S .C . §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 7 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the '114 Patent and 8 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof. 9 113. The `114 Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy the conditions for 1 0 patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code . 1 1 THIRD COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 12 (IBM'S JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE `114 PATENT) 13 114. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 1 4 previous paragraphs. 1 5 115. On April 23, 2002, the PTO issued the `114 Patent, entitled "Method 1 6 for the Physical Placement of an Integrated Circuit Adaptive to Netlist Changes," upon an 1 7 application filed in the names of Narendra Shenoy and Lukas van Ginneken . 1 8 116. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `114 Patent . 1 9 117. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 20 of 28 U.S .C . §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 2 1 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the '114 Patent and 22 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof . 23 118. IBM is a joint owner of the `114 Patent . 24 FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 5 (NO LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMEN T 26 OF THE `114 PATENT DUE TO LICENSE) 27 119. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 28 previous paragraphs. MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 25 Case No . C04-03923 MMC

Pase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 26 of 3 5

1 120. On April 23, 2002, the PTO issued the '114 Patent, entitled "Method 2 for the Physical Placement of an Integrated Circuit Adaptive to Netlist Changes," upon an

3 application filed in the names of Narendra Shenoy and Lukas van Ginneken . 4 121. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `114 Patent.

5 122. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning

6 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 7 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the '114 Patent and 8 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof.

9 123. Magma cannot be liable for infringing the `114 Patent because

1 0 Magma is licensed under the `114 Patent .

1 1 FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 2 (OWNERSHIP OF THE MAGMA PATENTS )

1 3 124. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

1 4 previous paragraphs.

1 5 125. Magma holds record title to and is the legal and equitable owner of

16 all right, title and interest in and to the `446 and `438 Patents.

1 7 126. Notwithstanding that Magma is the owner of all right, title and

1 8 interest in and to the `446 and `438 Patents, in its Complaint, Synopsys claims to be the

19 sole owner of all of the inventions claimed in the `446 Patent and the 1438 Patent .

20 Synopsys also is claiming to the public that Synopsys, rather than Magma, is the true

2 1 owner of the `446 and `438 Patents.

22 127. There is a substantial, actual and continuing controversy between

23 Magma and Synopsys as to the ownership of the `446 Patent and the 1438 Patent .

24 128. Synopsys' false claims of ownership in the `446 Patent and the `438

25 Patent have harmed Magma and will continue to harm Magma until such time as

26 Synopsys is enjoined from making such claims .

27 129. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Magma requests

28 the Court declare that Synopsys has no ownership right in either the `446 Patent or the MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAIN T AND COUNTERCLAIMS 26 Case No . C04-03923 MMC Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 27 of 3 5

1 `438 Patent and that the Court further declare Magma the owner of all right, title and 2 interest in and to the `446 Patent and the `438 Patent. 3 SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 4 (NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `446 PATENT) 5 130. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 6 previous paragraphs . 7 131. On September 17, 2002, the PTO issued to Magma the `446 Patent, 8 entitled 'Timing Closure Methodology," upon m application filed in the name of Lukas 9 P. P . P . van Ginneken . 10 132. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `446 Patent. 1 1 133. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 12 of 28 U .S.C . §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 13 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `446 Patent and 14 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof.

1 5 134. If Magma does not own the `446 Patent, Magma does not infringe, or 16 contribute to or induce the infringement of, the `446 Patent . 1 7 SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 1 8 (IBM'S JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE `446 PATENT) 19 135. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 20 previous paragraphs .

21 136. On September 17, 2002, the PTO issued to Magma the 1446 Patent, 22 entitled "Timing Closure Methodology," upon an application filed in the name of Lukas 23 P. P. P. van Ginneken. 24 137. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `446 Patent . 25 138. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 26 of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 27 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `446 Patent and 28 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof. MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 27 Case No . C04 -03923 MMC

Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 28 of 3 5

1 139. If Magma does not exclusively own the `446 Patent, IBM is a joint 2 owner of the `446 Patent. 3 EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 4 (NO LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT 5 OF THE `446 PATENT DUE TO LICENSE ) 6 140. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 7 previous paragraphs .

8 141. On September 17, 2002, the PTO issued to Magma the `446 Patent, 9 entitled 'Timing Closure Methodology," upon m application filed in the name of Lukasl 10 P . P . P. van Ginneken. 1 1 142. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `446 Patent . 12 143. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 13 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the

14 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `446 Patent and 15 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof .

16 144. If Magma does not own `446 Patent, Magma cannot infringe the `446

1 7 Patent because Magma is licensed under the `446 Patent . 1 8 NINTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 9 (INVALIDITY OF THE `446 PATENT) 20 145. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

21 previous paragraphs . 22 146. On September 17, 2002, the PTO issued to Magma the `446 Patent, 23 entitled "Timing Closure Methodology," upon an application filed in the name of Lukas 24 P. P . P . van Ginneken. 25 147. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the 1446 Patent. 26 148. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 27 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to th e

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 28 Case No. C04-03923 MMC ase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 29 of 3 5

I inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `446 Patent and 2 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof. 3 149. If Magma does not own the `446 Patent, the `446 Patent is invalid 4 because it fails to satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United 5 States Code. 6 TENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 7 (NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `438 PATENT) 8 150. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 9 previous paragraphs.

1 0 151. On April 20, 2004, the PTO issued to Magma the `438 Patent, II entitled "Timing Closure Methodology," upon an application filed in the name of Lukas

1 2 P. P . P . van Ginneken .

13 152. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `438 Patent .

14 153. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning

1 5 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the

1 6 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `438 Patent and

1 7 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof.

1 8 154. If Magma does not own the `438 Patent, Magma does not infringe, or

1 9 contribute to or induce the infringement of, the `438 Patent.

20 ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 1 (IBM'S JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE `438 PATENT)

22 155. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

23 previous paragraphs . 24 156. On April 20, 2004, the PTO issued to Magma the `438 Patent,

25 entitled 'Timing Closure Methodology," upon an application filed in the name of Lukas

26 P . P . P . van Ginneken .

27 157. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the 1438 Patent .

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 29 Case No. C04-03923 MMC Pase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 30 of 3 5

1 158. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning 2 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 3 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `438 Patent and 4 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof. 5 159. If Magma does not exclusively own the `438 Patent, IBM is a joint 6 owner of the `438 Patent. 7 TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF 8 (NO LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT 9 OF THE `438 PATENT DUE TO LICENSE)

1 0 160. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the 1 1 previous paragraphs.

12 161. On April 20, 2004, the PTO issued to Magma the `438 Patent,

13 entitled "Timing Closure Methodology," upon an application filed in the name of Lukas 14 P. P. P. van Ginneken .

1 5 162. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the `438 Patent.

1 6 163. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning

1 7 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the

1 8 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `438 Patent and

19 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof.

20 164. If Magma does not own the `438 Patent, Magma cannot be liable for

21 infringing the `438 Patent because Magma is licensed under the `438 Patent.

22 THIRTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF

23 (INVALIDITY OF THE `438 PATENT) 24 165. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the

25 previous paragraphs.

26 166. On April 20, 2004, the PTO issued to Magma the `438 Patent,

27 entitled "Timing Closure Methodology," upon an application filed in the name of Lukas 28 P. P. P. van Ginneken . MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 30 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Pase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 31 of 3 5

1 167. Synopsys claims to be the owner of the 1438 Patent.

2 168. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy within the meaning'

3 of 28 U.S .C. §§ 2201 and 2202 between Magma and Synopsys with respect to the 4 inventorship, ownership, validity, enforceability, and infringement of the `438 Patent and

5 Magma's alleged liability for infringement thereof .

6 169. If Magma does not own the `438 Patent, the `438 Patent is invalid 7 because it fails to satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United

8 States Code. 9 FOURTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 0 (UNFAIR COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF

11 CAL . BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.)

12 170. Magma incorporates by reference the allegations set fo rth in the

13 previous paragraphs .

1 4 171. By reason of the foregoing, Synopsys has been, and is, engaged in

1 5 "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices" in violation of California Business and

1 6 Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., and in acts of unfair competition in violation of the

1 7 common law .

1 8 172. Synopsys' acts complained of herein have damaged and will continue

1 9 to damage Magma irreparably. Magma has no adequate remedy at law for such wrongs

20 and injuries. The damage to Magma includes harm to its goodwill and reputation that

2 1 money cannot compensate . Magma is therefore entitled to preliminary and permanent

22 injunctions restraining and enjoining Synopsys and its agents, servants, employees,

23 representatives, successors and assigns, and those acting in concert with them or on their

24 behalf, from making false and misleading statements that Synopsys owns the Magma

25 Patents and that Magma infringes the '114 Patent and the Magma Patents .

26

27

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 31 Case No . C04-03923 MMC ease 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 32 of 3 5

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, Defendant and Counterclaimant Magma prays : 3 (1) that the Court dismiss with prejudice the Complaint of plaintiff) 4 Synopsys, that Synopsys take nothing by reason of the Complaint, and that judgment be 5 rendered in favor of Magma ; 6 (2) that the Court render judgment declaring that Magma has not 7 infringed and is not infringing the '1 14 Patent; 8 (3) that the Court render judgment declaring that IBM is a joint owner of the '1 14 Patent; (4) that the Court render judgment declaring that Magma cannot be liable for infringing the '1 14 Patent because Magma is licensed under the '1 14 Patent; (5) that the Court render judgment declaring that the `114 Patent i s 1 3 invalid; 1 4 (6) that the Court render judgment declaring that Synopsys has no 1 5 ownership interest whatsoever in the `446 Patent or in the `438 Patent ; 1 6 (7) that the Court render judgment re-affirming and declaring that 1 7 Magma is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the `446 and `438 Patents; 1 8 (8) that Synopsys, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, 1 9 successors and assigns, and those acting in privity or in concert with them or on their 20 behalf, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from claiming or otherwise stating that 2 1 (a) Synopsys is the owner, in whole or in part, of the `446 or `438 Patents, or any 22 inventions claimed therein, or (b) Magma infringes the '1 14 Patent, the `446 Patent, or the

23 `438 Patent ; 24 (9) that if Magma does not own the `446 Patent, the Court render 25 judgment declaring that Magma has not infringed and is not infringing the `446 Patent ; 26 (10) that if Magma does not exclusively own the `446 Patent, the Court 27 render judgment declaring that IBM is a joint owner of the `446 Patent ;

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 32 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

Pase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 33 of 3 5

1 (11) that if Magma does not own the `446 Patent, the Court render 2 judgment declaring that Magma cannot be liable for infringing the `446 Patent because 3 Magma is licensed under the `446 Patent ; 4 (12) that if Magma does not own the `446 Patent, the Court render 5 judgment declaring that the `446 Patent is invalid ; 6 (13) that if Magma does not own the `438 Patent, the Court render 7 judgment declaring that Magma has not infringed and is not infringing the `438 Patent ; 8 (14) that if Magma does not exclusively own the `438 Patent, the Cour t 9 render judgment declaring that IBM is a joint owner of the `438 Patent;

1 0 (15) that if Magma does not own the `438 Patent, the Court render 11 judgment declaring that Magma cannot be liable for infringing the `438 Patent because

12 Magma is licensed under the `438 Patent;

13 (16) that if Magma does not own the `438 Patent, the Court render 1 4 judgment declaring that the `438 Patent is invalid ;

1 5 (17) that the Court render judgment declaring this to be an exceptional 1 6 case under 35 U.S .C. § 285 ;

1 7 (18) that Magma be awarded its attorneys' fees and costs ; and

1 8 (19) that Magma be awarded such other and further relief as the Court 1 9 deems proper. 20 Dated : October 21, 2004 GEORGE A. RILEY 2 1 CHRISTOPHER D. CATALANO RYAN K. YAGURA 22 LUANN L. SIMMONS O'MELVENY & MYERS LL P 23

24 By /s/ George A . Riley 25 George A. Riley 26 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant MAGMA DESIGN 27 AUTOMATION, INC. 28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 33 Case No. C04-03923 MMC

ase 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 34 of 3 5

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIA L

2 Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant and 3 counterclaimant Magma Design Automation, Inc . hereby demands a trial by jury of all 4 issues. 5 Dated: October 21, 2004 GEORGE A. RILEY 6 RYAN K. YAGURA CHRISTOPHER D. CATALANO 7 LUANN L . SIMMONS 8 O'MELVENY & MYERS LL P

9

1 0 By /s/ George A. Riley George A. Riley 1 1 Attorneys for Defendant and 12 Counterclaimant MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC . 13

1 4

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 34 Case No . C04- 03923 MMC

Fase 3 :04-cv-03923-MMC Document 10 Filed 10/21/2004 Page 35 of 35

1 CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSON S 2 Pursuant to Civil L .R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that the following listed 3 persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent 4 corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in 5 controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that 6 subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 7 proceeding: 8 IBM's contract or property rights may be affected by the outcome of this 9 proceeding.

10

11 Dated: October 21, 2004 GEORGE A . RILEY 12 RYAN K. YAGURA CHRISTOPHER D . CATALANO 13 LUANN L. SIMMONS O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 14

15 By /s/ George A . Riley 16 George A . Riley 17 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant MAGMA DESIGN 1 8 AUTOMATION, INC. 19

SF I :564434.1 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2 7

28 MAGMA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS 35 Case No . C04-03923 MMC EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D