Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-56/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-09-5235 MMC

ORDER DENYING POWER

INTEGRATIONS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE

TESTIMONY OF DR. GU-YEON WEI AND

DR. JONATHAN WOOD

Before the Court is Power Integrations’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Gu-Yeon

Wei and Dr. Jonathan Wood, filed September 27, 2013. Defendants Fairchild

Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and System

General Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”) have filed opposition, to which Power

Integrations has replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on November 21, 2013. 

Frank E. Scherkenbach, Howard G. Pollack, and Michael R. Headley of Fish & Richardson

P.C. appeared on behalf of Power Integrations. Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick,

Terrence P. McMahon, and Leigh J. Martinson of McDermott Will & Emery LLP appeared

on behalf of Fairchild.

1. Dr. Wei

For the reasons discussed on the record at the hearing, the Court finds Dr. Wei may

offer the opinions challenged by the instant motion only if a foundation for the tests on

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 347 Filed 11/26/13 Page 1 of 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

2

which he relies is laid by one or more of the individuals who conducted the testing. The

Court further finds, for the reasons discussed at the hearing, that although Fairchild should

have disclosed the testing and said individuals’ participation therein at the time Fairchild

first became aware of such information, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), 26(e), Power

Integrations has known of Dr. Wei’s reliance thereon since August 22, 2013, the date on

which Power Integrations was served with Dr. Wei’s report, and will not be prejudiced by

the delayed disclosure if afforded the opportunity to depose the individuals who conducted

the testing, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

Accordingly, the motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Wei is hereby DENIED, on the

condition that Fairchild make the above-referenced individuals, specifically Wei-Hsuan

Huang and Eddie Chueh, available for deposition at a reasonable time and place, either in

the United States or in Taiwan, at Power Integrations’ election.

2. Dr. Wood

For the reasons discussed on the record at the hearing, the Court finds Fairchild has

made a sufficient showing as to the “relevance and reliability” of the challenged opinions

offered by Dr. Wood. See Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 700 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.

2012); see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315-16 (9th

Cir. 1995) (requiring district court to determine whether expert’s testimony “amounts to

‘scientific knowledge,’ constitutes ‘good science,’ and was ‘derived by the scientific

method,’” as well as whether it is “‘relevant to the task at hand’”) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590, 593, 597 (1993)).

Accordingly, the motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Wood is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 347 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2