A superior US court has ordered Avant Corporation to pay $182 million to rival electronic design company Cadence Design Systems, Inc. The court ruled in favour of Cadence following a lengthy dispute between the competing companies over Avant’s use of computer code, which had been developed by Cadence, in one of its ArcCell product.

The case began in 1995 when Cadence alleged that the group of its former employees responsible for establishing ArcSys (the precursor of Avant) had taken valuable trade secret information with them upon their departure from Cadence. The court ordered payment to Cadence after Avant submitted four pleas that did not contest the allegations made against it regarding the theft of software code.

In response to the court ruling, president and CEO of Cadence Ray Bingham commented:

"The decision by Superior Court Judge Conrad Rushing to require Avant! Corporation to pay $182 million plus interest in restitution is a clear sign that the court recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property and establishes that trade secret theft will not be tolerated in Silicon Valley.

"The purpose of the criminal proceeding is to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, arresting criminal behavior and deterring others from violating the law. These purposes have been served."

Following the court ruling, a $27 million fine has been imposed upon Avant in addition to fines against individuals associated with Avant amounting to $8 million and the possibility of five individuals being sentenced for their criminal activities.

According to a recent press release from Cadence, it intends to aggressively pursue the case against Avant in the civil courts in order to realise the maximum amount of damages available. In addition, the company is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Avant from marketing any products that are based on proprietary codes or other trade secrets stolen from Cadence.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.