Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-57/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 FAIRCHILD’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS

AND TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN D.

PUTNAM; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART POWER

INTEGRATIONS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE

THE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF

JAMES MALACKOWSKI

Before the Court are two motions pertaining to the parties’ respective experts on the

issue of damages: (1) the Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Jonathan D.

Putnam, filed September 27, 2013, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International,

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

“Fairchild”); and (2) the Motion to Exclude Testimony of James Malackowski, filed

September 27, 2013, by plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”). Each

party has filed opposition, to which the other has replied. The matters 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.

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 348 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

1. Dr. Putnam

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

challenges to Dr. Putnam’s methodology in calculating damages go to the weight of his

opinions and not to their admissibility. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Daubert II”), 43 F.3d 1311, 1315-16 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring

district court to determine whether expert’s testimony “amounts to ‘scientific knowledge,’

constitutes ‘good science,’ and was ‘derived by the scientific method’”) (quoting Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Daubert”), 509 U.S. 579, 590, 593 (1993)).

Accordingly, the motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Putnam is hereby DENIED.

I 2. Mr. Malackowski

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

to indirect infringement, the challenges to Mr. Malackowski’s methodology in calculating

damages go to the weight of his opinions and not to their admissibility. See id. With

respect to direct infringement, however, the Court finds the methodology employed is

insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert.

Accordingly, to the extent Mr. Malackowski’s testimony pertains to damages for

indirect infringement, the motion to exclude is hereby DENIED, and to the extent his

testimony pertains to damages for direct infringement, the motion to exclude 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 348 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2