Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-144/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 RE: POWER INTEGRATIONS’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO

FAIRCHILD’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE

JONATHAN D. PUTNAM, AND

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS; DIRECTIONS

TO POWER INTEGRATIONS

Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal, filed September 14,

2015, by plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”), pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 79-5, by which Power Integrations seeks permission to seal the entirety of Exhibits 1 -

3 to the Declaration of Michael R. Headley (“Headley Declaration”) filed in support of

“Power Integrations’ Opposition to Fairchild’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Jonathan

D. Putnam,” as well as portions of Power Integrations’s opposition that make reference to

said exhibits. 

By order filed October 20, 2015, the Court deferred ruling on the administrative

motion to the extent it sought to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to the Headley Declaration and

related portions of said Opposition, and directed each party to file a supplemental response

identifying the portions of said exhibits and Opposition that contain that party’s confidential

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 943 Filed 01/26/16 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

1

To the extent Power Integrations sought to seal Exhibit 2 to the Headley

Declaration and related portions of the Opposition, the Court granted the motion.

2

information.1 On November 3, 2015, the parties timely filed their supplemental responses. 

Having read and considered the supplemental responses, the Court finds good cause to

seal those portions of Exhibits 1 and 3 and the Opposition that are identified in the parties’

supplemental responses as sealable material.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the administrative motion to the extent it

seeks to seal portions of Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3, and the Opposition, and Power Integrations is

hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than February 2, 2016, a version of

each said exhibit in which the parties’ confidential material, as identified in their respective

supplemental responses, is redacted, and a version of the Opposition in which references

to Exhibit 2 and the parties’ confidential material, as identified in their respective

supplemental responses, are redacted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 943 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 2