Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-55/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 GRANTING FAIRCHILD’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DR.

KELLEY’S INFRINGEMENT REPORT

Before the Court is the Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Kelley’s Infringement Report

Containing New Infringement Positions, filed September 27, 2013, by defendants Fairchild

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

General Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”). Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power

Integrations”) has filed opposition, to which Fairchild 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.

For the reasons discussed on the record at the hearing, the Court finds Power

Integrations was aware of its infringement contentions as to the four newly disclosed BurstGreen Mode products at a point in the litigation at which its could have filed a timely motion

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 346 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

to amend but did not do so at that time or at any time thereafter. See Patent L.R. 3-1(b)

(requiring “[e]ach product, device, and apparatus” to be “identified by name or model

number, if known”); Patent L.R. 3-6 (allowing amendment “upon a timely showing of good

cause,” including “[r]ecent discovery of nonpublic information”). With respect to the VS pin

and the DET pin, Power Integrations has not met its burden of showing said pins, and

infringement theories based thereon, are effectively disclosed by other information included

in its infringement contentions. See Patent L.R. 3-1(c) (requiring “chart identifying

specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused

Instrumentality”).

The Court further finds, for the reasons discussed on the record, Power Integrations’

infringement contentions fail to include, either by incorporation or otherwise, an assertion of

contributory infringement. See Patent L.R. 3-1(d) (requiring “description of the acts of the

alleged indirect infringer that contribute to . . . direct infringement”).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 346 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2