Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04854/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04854-11/pdf.json

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

---

STIP & PROPOSED ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Case No. 3:15-cv-04854-MMC

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

Frank E. Scherkenbach (SBN 142549) 

scherkenbach@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

One Marina Park Drive 

Boston, MA 02110-2804

Tel: (617) 542-5070 ** Fax: (617) 542-8906

Howard G. Pollack (SBN 162897) 

pollack@fr.com

Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834) 

headley@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel: (650) 839-5070 ** Fax: (650) 839-5071

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. 

Blair M. Jacobs (admitted pro hac vice)

blairjacobs@paulhastings.com

Christina A, Ondrick (admitted pro hac vice)

christinaondrick@paulhastings.com

Charles J. Hawkins (admitted pro hac vice)

charleshawkins@paulhastings.com

Patrick J. Stafford (admitted pro hac vice)

patrickstafford@paulhastings.com

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

875 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 551-1700 ** Fax: (202) 551-1705

Erik R. Puknys (SBN 190926) 

erik.puknys@finnegan.com

Justin A. Hendrix (SBN 301057) 

justin.hendrix@finnegan.com

Ming Wai Choy (SBN 306189) 

ming.choy@finnegan.com

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

3300 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Tel: (650) 849-6600 ** Fax: (650) 849-6666

Attorneys for Defendants FAIRCHILD 

SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION, and FAIRCHILD 

(TAIWAN) CORPORATION 

Additional counsel listed on signature page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and 

FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN) CORPORATION, 

a Taiwanese corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-04854-MMC

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 65 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 3
1 STIP & PROPOSED 

ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Case No. 3:15-cv-04854-MMC

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

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the 

following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5: 

The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process: 

Court Processes:

☐ Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)

☐ Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)

☐ Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)

(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is 

appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR must participate in an 

ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for 

ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5) 

Private Process:

 Private ADR (please identify process and provider) _The parties have agreed to a 

private mediation with a private mediator of the parties’ election. 

The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:

☐ the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order 

referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered. ) 

 other requested deadline: The parties believe that mediation in this case should 

occur as part of a larger effort to settle all the litigations between the parties. In view of 

Fairchild’s pending merger and the rulings the parties expect to receive later this year in their copending litigations, the parties believe that mediation would be most productive after final 

judgment is entered in the other case between them that is currently pending in this Court (No. 09-

cv-05235-MMC) and after conclusion of an appeal currently pending in the Federal Circuit (No. 

2015-1329), which was argued on July 8, 2016. 

Dated: Aug, 5, 2016 /s/ Erik R. Puknys

Erik R. Puknys

Attorney for Defendants

Dated: Aug. 5, 2016 /s/ Michael R. Headley

Michael R. Headley

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 65 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 3
2 STIP & PROPOSED 

ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Case No. 3:15-cv-04854-MMC

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

Additional counsel for Defendants

Yar R. Chaikovsky (SBN 175421 / yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com)

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

1117 S. California Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Tel; 650-320-1800 ** Fax: 650-320-1900

E. Robert Yoches (admitted pro hac vice / bob.yoches@finnegan.com)

Gerald F. Ivey (admitted pro hac vice / gerald.ivey@finnegan.com)

J. Preston Long (admitted pro hac vice / j.preston.long@finnegan.com)

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

901 New York Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-408-4000 ** Fax: 202-408-4400

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED:

☐ The parties’ stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED.

☐ The parties’ stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

The Hon. Maxine Chesney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

X

The parties' ADR deadline will be addressed at the next Case Management Conference. August 10, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 65 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 3