Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-22/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 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO SEVER AND TRANSFER

Before the Court is plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“Power Integrations”) “Motion

to Sever Defendants’ Claims Regarding the ‘700 Patent,” filed November 16, 2012. 

Defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor

Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”) and System General Corporation (“System General”)

have filed opposition, to which plaintiff has replied. The matter came on regularly for

hearing December 21, 2012. Howard G. Pollack and Michael R. Headley of Fish &

Richardson P.C. appeared on behalf of Power Integrations. Terrence P. McMahon of

McDermott Will & Emory LLP appeared on behalf of Fairchild and System General. Having

read and considered the parties’ respective written submissions and considered the

arguments of counsel, the Court, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, rules

as follows.

Having weighed the factors ordinarily considered relevant to the issues of

severance, see S.E.C. v. Leslie, No. C 07–3444, 2010 WL 2991038 *4 (N.D. Cal. July 29,

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 187 Filed 12/21/12 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

2010), and transfer, see Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000), and

any other factors identified by the parties as bearing on those issues, the Court finds Power

Integrations has not shown that System General’s claims based on the ‘700 patent, if heard

in the Northern District of California as opposed to the District of Delaware, will result in any

prejudice to Power Integrations or any inconvenience to any party or witness. Further,

although Power Integrations asserts the ‘972, ‘700, and ‘461 patents concern closely

related technology, Power Integrations has not made a sufficient showing as to how

litigation of any issue pertaining to claim construction, infringement, or invalidity will, in the

absence of transfer, be substantially duplicative or result in conflicting determinations.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2012 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 187 Filed 12/21/12 Page 2 of 2