govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_24-cv-07031-4

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC., 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
INTELLIGENT AUTOMATION 
(ZHUHAI) CO., LTD., 
Defendant. 
 

 
 
ORDER GRANTING CIVIL 
SANCTIONS 
 
 
On January 26, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause why nonparties Intelligent 
Automation Technology Inc. (IAT) and Xuejian Wei, an IAT employee, should not be sanctioned 
for civil contempt for the reasons identified in Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi’s 
nondispositive pretrial order certifying facts to this Court. Dkt. Nos. 73, 104. After reviewing the 
parties’ briefing on the order to show cause, Cadence’s request for civil sanctions is granted. 
In their briefing, IAT and Wei challenge neither the legal nor factual bases for Judge 
DeMarchi’s order. Instead, IAT and Wei merely argue that contempt is inappropriate because they 
have offered to pay the sanctions Judge DeMarchi levied as well as the costs Cadence incurred in 
litigating the motion for relief from Judge DeMarchi’s order. IAT and Wei also argue that 
sanctions are unnecessary to coerce compliance with the relevant subpoenas given defendant 
CYGIA’s appearance in this action. 
Sanctions are nonetheless appropriate and warranted here. Even if the coercive purpose of 
sanctions has become less pressing, civil contempt and sanctions still serve a compensatory 
purpose by providing redress to those harmed by the conduct at issue. Because IAT and Wei 
sought relief from Judge DeMarchi’s order, IAT and Wei cannot reasonably contend that Cadence 
unnecessarily incurred fees in litigating IAT and Wei’s motion. Cadence’s request for $37,271.80 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
in fees—$19,816.20 incurred in litigating IAT and Wei’s compliance with Cadence’s discovery 
requests, $7,455.60 incurred in briefing the motion for contempt before Judge DeMarchi, and 
$10,000 incurred in briefing the instant order to show cause—is reasonable and therefore granted. 
Dkt. No. 113-1, Papazian Decl., ¶ 19. 
Cadence also moves the Court to consider whether its opposition brief should be sealed in 
part because it cites transcripts of the deposition of Xuejian Wei. Dkt. No. 112. IAT and Wei do 
not contend that those portions of the deposition must be filed under seal. Dkt. No. 116. 
Accordingly, Cadence’s sealing motion is denied, and Cadence is ordered to file an unredacted 
version of its opposition brief on the public docket within 7 days of this order. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 15, 2026 
 
 
P. Casey Pitts 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight