Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-58/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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART POWER

INTEGRATIONS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,747,977 and

8,179,700, filed September 27, 2013. Defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International,

Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and System General Corporation (collectively,

“Fairchild”) have filed opposition, to which Power Integrations 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.

1. ‘977 Patent

For the reasons discussed on the record at the hearing, the Court finds, with respect

to the limitations on which Power Integrations’ motion is based, Fairchild has submitted

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 349 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

sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to infringement. (See, e.g., Decl. of Jonathan

R. Wood in Support of Fairchild’s Opp’n to Power Integrations’ Mot. for Summary Judgment

(“Wood Decl.”) ¶¶ 35-64 (describing analysis of datasheets and testing revealing threshold

levels); id. ¶¶ 50-54 (describing analysis of datasheet and testing revealing presence of

claim element 6(f) in TOPSwitch products); id. ¶¶ 57-62 (describing analysis of datasheet

and testing revealing presence of claim element 6(f) in TinySwitch products); id. ¶¶ 65-71

(describing analysis of datasheets revealing presence of “inductor” in accused products).)

Accordingly, to the extent Power Integrations seeks summary judgment as to the

‘977 patent, the motion is hereby DENIED.

2. ‘700 Patent

For the reasons discussed on the record at the hearing, the Court finds with respect

to the limitations on which Power Integrations’ motion is based, and to the extent Dr. Wood

relies on the components disclosed in Fairchild’s Supplemental Disclosure of Asserted

Claims and Infringement Contentions, Fairchild has raised a triable issue as to

infringement. (See, e.g., Wood Decl. ¶¶ 31; 73-76 (describing testing and technical

documents showing “minimum on time” as defined by “the Court’s construction of the

term”).) To the extent, however, Dr. Wood relies solely on components disclosed for the

first time in Fairchild’s proposed Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement

Contentions, which amendments have been denied, Fairchild has failed to present

admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to infringement.

Accordingly, to the extent Power Integrations seeks summary judgement as to the

‘700 patent, 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 349 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2