Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-40/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-5235 MMC (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER RE:

FAIRCHILD’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 264)

On August 28, 2013, the Court denied Defendant Fairchild Semiconductor International’s

motion to amend its infringement contentions. Dkt. No. 231. The Court found that Fairchild had

failed to establish its diligence in seeking to amend and that Plaintiff Power Integrations would be

prejudiced by allowing Fairchild to amend two months after the close of discovery and two weeks

before summary judgment motions were due. Fairchild has now filed a motion for reconsideration,

arguing that it could not amend its infringement contentions in a timely manner because its technical

expert’s wife received a terminal diagnosis of eight weeks to live two days before the District Court’s

Markman Order issued. Jt. Ltr. at 2, Dkt. No. 264. Fairchild states that this prevented its expert from

assisting with revising its contentions until late June. Id. In response, Power Integrations argues that

Fairchild cannot satisfy the requirements for reconsideration because, at the time it sought leave to

amend, it knew about the expert’s situation but chose not to present it to the Court. Id. at 3-4.

The Civil Local Rules state that a party may, with leave of Court, file a motion for

reconsideration of any interlocutory order. Civil L.R. 7-9. The moving party must show (1) “[t]hat at

the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists,” about which the party

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 269 Filed 10/07/13 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of the order, and which warrants

reconsideration; (2) “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the

time of such order; or (3)[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

legal arguments.” Id. In general, motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely

granted. See generally Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

Here, while it sympathizes with the personal circumstances of Fairchild’s expert, the Court is

unable to find that Fairchild has met either of the three requirements for a motion for reconsideration. 

Fairchild admits that it knew about its expert’s family situation at the time it sought leave to amend,

yet it chose not to present it to the Court, either in its initial motion to Judge Chesney or the parties’

joint letter. See Dkt. No. 226-1, 230. Accordingly, Fairchild’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2013 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 269 Filed 10/07/13 Page 2 of 2