Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06371/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06371-1/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06371-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO TRANSFER WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND STAYING 

PROCEEDINGS FOR SIXTY DAYS

Defendants ON Semiconductor Corporation et al. (“ON”) seek an order transferring this 

case to the District of Arizona, or, in the alternative, severing the causes of action concerning U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,212,079 (“the ’079 patent”) and 8,115,457 (“the ʼ457 patent”) and transferring those 

causes of action to the District of Arizona. Mot., ECF 18. For the reasons discussed below, ON’s

motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All further proceedings are STAYED for sixty (60) 

days.

I. BACKGROUND

Relevant facts begin not here, but in Arizona. On August 11, 2016, ON filed an action for 

patent infringement against Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) in the District 

of Arizona, ON Semiconductor Corporation et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv2720, alleging infringement of six patents and requesting declaratory judgment that it did not 

infringe three of Power Integrations’ patents: the ’097 patent, the ’457 patent, and U.S. Patent No. 

6,249,876 (“the ’876 patent”). Ex. A to Opp., ECF 19-2. Nearly three months later, on November 

1, 2016, Power Integrations filed the instant suit in this district, alleging infringement of its ’079 

and ’547 patents, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,119 (“the ’119 patent”), 7,538,533 (“the ’533 

patent”), 6,297,623 (“the ’623 patent”), and 6,414,471 (“the ’471 patent”). Compl., ECF 1. 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 33 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 5
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

The next day, on November 2, 2016, Power Integrations filed a motion in the Arizona case 

to (1) dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) in the alternative, 

transfer the case to this district. Ex. C to Opp., ECF 19-4. After ON amended its Complaint, 

Power Integrations filed a new motion on these same grounds. Ex. A to Opp., ECF 19-2. Briefing 

for this motion completed on February 13, 2017.

ON filed the instant motion on December 21, 2016. Mot., ECF 18. The Court heard 

argument on March 16, 2017.

II. DISCUSSION

A. First-to-File Rule

The “first-to-file” rule is a “generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits 

a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties 

and issues has already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic Inc., 

678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, “[w]hen two actions involving nearly identical parties 

and closely related patent infringement questions are filed in separate districts, which happens 

with some frequency in contemporary litigation, the general rule is that the case first filed takes 

priority, and the subsequently filed suit should be dismissed or transferred or stayed.” 14D 

Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3823 (3d ed. 2011). In patent litigation, 

“[t]he first-filed action is preferred, even if it is declaratory, ‘unless considerations of judicial and

litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes, require otherwise.’” Serco 

Services Co., L.P. v. Kelley Co., Inc., 51 F.3d 1037, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Genentech, 

Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Wilton 

v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 132 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1995)).

Three factors should be considered in deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule: 

(1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the 

issues. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1991). The issues and 

parties in the first and second action need not be identical, but “substantially similar.” Inherent v.

MartindaleHubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Dumas v. Major 

League Baseball Properties Inc., 52 F. Supp. 2d. 1183 (S.D. Cal. 1999), vacated on other grounds 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 33 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

by, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (S.D. Cal. 2000) aff’d, 300 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Nat’l 

Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., No. C-11-1892 EMC, 2012 

WL 3277222, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (“For purposes of the first-to-file rule, [i]n 

determining whether the cases involve the same issue, it is enough that the overall content of each 

suit is not very capable of independent development, and will be likely to overlap to a substantial 

degree.”) (internal quotation omitted).

Here, the parties agree that the first two factors are met: the Arizona case was filed first, 

and the parties are identical. Compare Mot. at 4-5, ECF 18, with Opp. at 6-8, ECF 19. However, 

Power Integrations disputes that there is sufficient “similarity of the issues” because, of the twelve 

patents that have been asserted across the two cases, only two overlap. Opp. at 7-8, ECF 19. ON 

responds that there is nevertheless sufficient similarity because the patents and accused products 

all involve related technology: power conversion. Reply at 4-5, ECF 20.

The Court finds that the “similarity of the issues” factor is weak, but still favors application 

of the first-to-file rule. Power Integrations is correct that at least some of the issues in this case are 

capable of independent development. For example, Power Integrations names different accused 

products for the ’079 and ’457 patents in its Complaint than for the other four patents it asserts. 

Compare Compl. ¶¶ 13, 23, ECF 1, with id. ¶¶ 32, 39, 46, 54. In addition, the patents asserted by 

Power Integrations accuse ON’s products, while the patents asserted by ON accuse Power 

Integrations’ products. Nevertheless, ON is also correct that all twelve patents asserted here relate 

to or involve similar technology: power conversion. As such, they may raise overlapping issues 

relating to prior art, the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and relevant conduct 

of the parties. This overlap could be substantial, but it is too early to tell at this stage. 

Nevertheless, it is at least possible for judicial efficiency to be served by litigating the claims 

together. The first-to-file rule “serves the purpose of promoting efficiency . . . .” Church of 

Scientology of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979). In light of this, the 

Court is cautious to place too much emphasis on potential differences in issues at this early stage. 

Accordingly, because the Arizona case was chronologically filed first, the parties are identical, and 

the issues are potentially similar enough to weakly favor it, the first-to-file rule applies. 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 33 Filed 03/21/17 Page 3 of 5
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

B. Exceptions to the First-to-File Rule

Nevertheless, application of the first-to-file rule is discretionary, and a court may depart 

from it if there is “sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed 

action.” Genentech, 998 F.2d at 938. “The circumstances under which an exception to the firstto-file rule typically will be made include bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” See 

e.g., Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628. Other circumstances may also warrant a rejection of the first-tofile rule, such as factors involving convenience to the parties or sound judicial administration. 

See, e.g., Z-Line Designs, Inc. v. Bell’O Internat’l, LLC, 218 F.R.D. 663, 665 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 

(noting that court may refuse to apply first-to-file rule if balance of convenience weighs in favor of 

later-filed action).

“However, it is the court with the first-filed action that should normally weigh the balance 

of convenience and any other factors that might create an exception to the first-to-file rule.” 

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Mosaid Techs. Inc., No. C 11-6264 PJH, 2012 WL 1029572, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628). Here, because the Arizona court is the firstfiled court, the Court declines to consider these factors and leaves them for the Arizona court to 

decide in the first instance. Such a decision is forthcoming, as these issues were fully briefed as a 

part of Power Integrations’ motion to dismiss and that motion has been submitted to that court. 

Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to stay this action for a sixty (60) day period, and await 

a decision from the Arizona court.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the first-to-file rule applies in this case, and 

that resolution of whether any exceptions should override the rule is best determined by the 

Arizona court. However, because the Arizona court has yet to rule on Power Integrations’ motion 

to dismiss, the Court determines that it would be inappropriate to dismiss or transfer this action at 

this time. Instead, the Court STAYS the action for sixty (60) days pending resolution of Power 

Integrations’ motion in Arizona. The parties are directed to file a joint status report informing this 

Court of the status of the Arizona court’s ruling within 14 days of its decision or at the conclusion 

of the sixty (60) day period, whichever comes first. 

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 33 Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

The instant motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent this motion is not 

moot after the Arizona court’s decision, ON may re-notice it in accordance with Civil L.R. 7-2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06371-BLF Document 33 Filed 03/21/17 Page 5 of 5