Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-59/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 FAIRCHILD’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed September 27, 2013, by

defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor

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

seeks judgment in its favor on Power Integrations’ claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No.

6,212,079 (“‘079 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908 (“‘908 patent”), as well as

judgment in its favor on Power Integrations’ claim that Fairchild’s U.S. Patent No. 5,747,977

(“‘977 patent”) is invalid on the basis of anticipation. Plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc.

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

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 350 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. ‘079 and ‘908 Patents

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

follows.

With respect to the limitations on which Fairchild’s motion is based, Power

Integrations has presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to infringement. 

(See, e.g., Decl. of Michael R. Headley in Support of Power Integrations’ Opp’n to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Headley Decl.”) Ex. 1 (Opening Expert

Report of Dr. Arthur W. Kelley) Ex. 3 at 24-35 (explaining, as to all accused products,

“oscillator provides non-varying number of switching cycles per second”).) With respect to

Fairchild’s other arguments going to liability, Power Integrations likewise has submitted

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

1 ¶¶ 103, 107 (identifying accused products sold in United States); id. Ex. 10 (Corrected

Expert Report of Jonathan D. Putnam) Ex. 4 (Fairchild employee deposition excerpts

concerning global supply chain); id. Ex. 15 (Kelley Dep. 104:2-10, Sept. 11, 2013) (noting

use of product exclusively in “green mode,” while possible, would “avoid the whole point of

buying the product”).) Lastly, with respect to the issue of damages, Power Integrations has

sufficiently distinguished the authority on which Fairchild relies.

Accordingly, to the extent Fairchild seeks summary judgment as to the ‘079 and ‘908

patents, the motion is hereby DENIED.

2. ‘977 Patent

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

Integrations, to the extent it asserts invalidity based on anticipation, has failed to present

sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue.

Accordingly, to the extent Fairchild seeks summary judgment on the issue of

anticipation, 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 350 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 2