Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-111/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., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware

Corporation, FAIRCHILD

SEIMCONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a

Delaware Corporation, and FAIRCHILD

(TAIWAN) CORPORATION, a Taiwanese

corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5235 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Before the Court is the “Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction,” filed

September 18, 2014, by plaintiff Power Integrations Inc. (“Power Integrations”). 

Defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor

Corporation, and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively “Fairchild”) have filed

opposition, to which Power Integrations has replied. The matter came on regularly for

hearing on January 26, 2015. Howard G. Pollack and Michael R. Headley of Fish &

Richardson P.C. appeared on behalf of Power Integrations. Blair M. Jacobs and Christina

A. Ondrick of McDermott Will & Emery LLP appeared on behalf of Fairchild. Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the

arguments of counsel at the hearing, the Court rules as follows.

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 10
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

1

A status conference has been scheduled for February 17, 2015, at which time the

Court will consider the parties’ respective proposed schedules for the retrial.

2

In the above-titled action, Power Integrations brings claims asserting Fairchild’s

infringement of two patents issued to Power Integrations, specifically, U.S. Patent No.

6,538,908 (“‘908 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079 (“‘079 patent”), both said patents

relating generally to power supply controllers. On March 4, 2014, a jury returned a verdict

in which it found a number of Fairchild’s products infringed both the ‘908 and ‘079 patents,

and awarded damages in the amount of $105,000,000. (See Verdict, filed Mar. 4, 2014.) 

Thereafter, the Court granted Fairchild’s motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. 

(See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Fairchild’s Renewed Motion for

Reconsideration, filed Nov. 25, 2014.)1

By the instant motion, Power Integrations seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting

Fairchild from “making, using, selling, or offering to sell in the United States, or importing

into the United States,” certain enumerated integrated circuit products and variations of the

listed products that are “not colorably different.” (See Proposed Order at 4:6-22.) 

Additionally, the requested injunction would direct Fairchild to provide notice of such

injunction to “all distributors, customers, or other third-parties who have ordered, received,

or purchased” the enumerated parts, restrain Fairchild from inducing others to infringe the

two relevant patents, and require Fairchild to include, with any enumerated or “not colorably

different” product that Fairchild delivers outside the United States, a short description and

copy of the order granting the permanent injunction. (See id. at 4-5.)

“[A] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a

court may grant such relief.” eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). In

particular, such “plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2)

that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate

for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and

defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be

disserved by a permanent injunction.” Id.

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 10
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

3

A. Irreparable Harm

As to the first factor, Power Integrations argues it has suffered irreparable harm as a

result of Fairchild’s infringement, specifically, lost sales, price erosion, loss of customer

goodwill, and damage to its reputation. “[T]o satisfy the irreparable harm factor in a patent

infringement suit, a patentee must establish both of the following requirements: 1) that

absent an injunction, it will suffer irreparable harm, and 2) that a sufficiently strong causal

nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung

Electronics Co. (“Apple II”), 695 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see Robert Bosch LLC

v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding “eBay jettisoned the

presumption of irreparable harm” after finding of infringement). Fairchild argues Power

Integrations has failed to make either showing as to any of the types of harm Power

Integrations claims to have suffered as a result of Fairchild’s infringement.

1. Lost Sales

At the outset, Fairchild argues the presence of other competitors in the market

precludes a finding of irreparable harm, as “one of [those] many competitors could obtain

any potential lost sale even if Fairchild was not involved in the competitive sales process.” 

(See Opp’n at 4:11-14.) Contrary to Fairchild’s argument, however, the “fact that other

[competitors] may be in the marketplace does not negate irreparable harm.” See Robert

Bosch, 659 F.3d at 1151 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court

next turns to the question of nexus. 

To establish the requisite causal nexus, a party seeking an injunction based on lost

sales must show “the infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused product.” 

Apple II, 695 F.3d at 1375. “[T]he relevant inquiry focuses on the objective reasons as to

why the patentee lost sales,” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (“Apple I”), 678 F.3d

1314, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and “should focus on the importance of the claimed invention

in the context of the accused product, and not just the importance, in general, of features of

the same type as the claimed invention.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (“Apple

III”), 735 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A patentee need not, however, show the

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 10
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

Datasheets “tell[] the customer what the product is about, what features . . . it [has],

and how to use that product.” (Trial Tr. at 383:18-20.) 

4

patented feature is “the one and only reason for consumer demand.” Id.

Here, Power Integrations contends two patented features drive demand for

Fairchild’s infringing products, specifically, as covered by the ‘908 patent, a controller chip

with an “externally settable current limit integrated onto a single multi-function pin that also

serves other purposes” (the “multi-function” feature) (see Mot. at 13:16-17), and, as

covered by the ‘079 patent, a controller chip that provides “improved efficiency” (see id. at

12:10) by “reducing the frequency of the oscillator to reduce switching frequency for lower

levels of load” (“the “frequency-reduction” feature) (see Power Integrations Opening Claim

Construction Brief, filed Feb. 18, 2011, at 4:7-9). 

In support thereof, Power Integrations first points to the datasheets it provides for its

products,2

 in which it highlights and describes the multi-function and frequency-reduction

features. Power Integrations further notes that Fairchild likewise highlights the patented

features in its datasheets, and also points to Power Integrations’ press releases, in which it

“prominently advertises the technology.” (See Mot. at 12:19-20.) Assuming the abovedescribed evidence suggests the parties believed it to be important to incorporate the

patented features into their respective products, such evidence, without more, is insufficient

to establish a causal nexus, as “the relevant inquiry focuses on the objective reasons as to

why the patentee lost sales, not on . . . subjective beliefs.” See Apple I, 678 F.3d at 1328;

see also Apple II, 695 F.3d at 1376-77 (finding defendant’s description of claimed infringing

feature as “core user feature,” although included in developer’s guide, “says too little about

what draws consumers to [accused product]”).

Similarly, Power Integrations’ evidence of two awards recognizing the ‘079

technology says little, if anything, about consumer demand. One such award was given to

Power Integrations’ CEO, Balu Balakrishnan (“Balakrishnan”), as the “chief inventor”

thereof (see Headley Decl. Ex. N) and the other, although awarded to Power Integrations,

was decided by two editors of a “webzine,” and was based on “performance, anticipated

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 10
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

5

market success, and likely contribution to the field of analog engineering and product

design” (see Headley Decl. Ex. O) (emphasis added). In sum, such evidence, without

something more, does not suffice to establish a causal nexus. See, e.g., Apple II, 695 F.3d

at 1377 (finding blogger’s “predict[ion]” that patented feature “could help [accused product]

win new customers” insufficient to establish causal nexus; finding statement “at best

reflects an individual belief” that such feature was important to consumers).

Nor has Power Integrations, by its citation to testimony from its CEO, Balakrishnan,

and its Vice President of Product Development, Michael Matthews (“Matthews”),

succeeded in making the requisite additional showing. Balakrishnan opined that, based on

his “interactions” with customers, the multi-function feature and frequency-reduction feature

“contributed” to the demand for Power Integrations’ products (see Trial Tr. at 387:1-17,

400:21-401:2), and Matthews testified the multi-function feature was “important for” Power

Integrations’ customers (id. at 2773:15-23). Neither witness, however, made clear that his

opinion was based on any specified customer input as opposed to his own subjective

assessment. Although Balakrishnan also testified that “TOPSwitch-GX [which includes the

frequency-reduction feature] very quickly replaced TOPSwitch-FX [which does not include

the frequency-reduction feature]” (see id. at 401:5), a comparison of the datasheets for the

two products shows that the TOPSwitch-GX includes a number of new features not found

in the TOPSwitch-FX, many of which are highlighted (see Headley Decl. Ex. S, Ex. V), and

Power Integrations makes no showing as to whether its customers’ purchasing decisions

were driven by the frequency-reduction feature, or only by one of the other new features.

The Court further notes that all of the above-discussed evidence, with the exception

of the Fairchild datasheets, is directed to Power Integrations’ products, not the infringing

products. The Federal Circuit has clarified that the nexus inquiry “should focus on the

importance of the claimed invention in the context of the accused product.” See Apple III,

735 F.3d at 1364 (emphasis added). Here, the parties’ competing products are circuits, i.e.

chips, which contain numerous features aside from the patented features. Customers may

buy a patentee’s product because it contains a patented feature, but buy the defendant’s

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 10
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

3

In addition to the above-referenced datasheets, Power Integrations notes that Lin

agreed “low-load frequency reduction is an important feature of [Fairchild’s] products” (see

Trial Tr. at 1425:6-7).

6

infringing product for entirely different reasons, e.g., additional or different features only

available in the defendant’s product. Power Integrations submits no evidence comparing

the similarity of the parties’ competing products as to any features other than the patented

features, and Fairchild has introduced evidence that its accused products contain other

desirable features. (See Trial Tr. at 1424:24-1425:1 (Gary Lin, General Manager of

Fairchild’s Power Conversion Business Unit, testifying “we do have . . . other features in the

product that aggregate together that attract customers, their attention”); see also id. at

2647:8-16 (James Malackowski, Fairchild’s damages expert, pointing out datasheets for

Fairchild’s accused products list “more than a hundred features and functions” and “the

patented technology is just one”).) Given the absence of a sufficient showing that

consumers demand Power Integrations’ products and Fairchild’s products for the same

reasons, Power Integrations’ evidence, even if it were sufficient to show the patented

features drive demand for its own products, is insufficient to establish a causal nexus

between those features and demand for Fairchild’s competing products.

As to demand for Fairchild’s products, the only evidence Power Integrations submits,

beyond subjective belief,3

 is Lin’s testimony that “several customer[s]” requested lower

power consumption in standby mode and that one, Foxconn, bought Fairchild’s products

after Fairchild included the patented frequency-reduction feature. (See id. at

1422:25-1425:8.) At the same time, however, Lin also testified, as noted above, that the

accused products contain other features that “attract customers,” (see id. at 1424:24-

1425:1) and defendants’ damages expert pointed out that the patented technology is “just

one” of “more than a hundred features and functions” listed on Fairchild’s datasheets (see

id. at 2647:10-11). Absent evidence of the relative importance of those other features,

there is insufficient evidence to show Fairchild’s customers would not buy the accused

product without the infringing feature. See Apple I, 678 F.3d at 1324 (holding “[s]ales lost

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 6 of 10
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

4

The Court notes that the trial was conducted before the Federal Circuit issued its

decision in VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For

purposes of the instant motion, Synopsys has relied exclusively on the testimony and other

evidence introduced at the trial, in which Synopsys took the position that it did not have to

establish the value of the patented features as distinct from the value of the smallest

saleable unit, the competing chip, as a whole.

7

to an infringing product cannot irreparably harm a patentee if consumers buy that product

for reasons other than the patented feature”); Apple II, 695 F.3d at 1375 (finding insufficient

showing of causal nexus and noting “it may very well be that the accused product would

sell almost as well without incorporating the patented feature”). Moreover, even assuming,

arguendo, Power Integrations has made a sufficient showing that the patented feature

significantly influenced one customer’s decision to purchase the accused product, the Court

finds such evidence insufficient to show the patented feature “drives consumer demand” in

general. (See Apple I, 678 F.3d at 1328.)

Accordingly, the Court, having considered the evidence presented, not only as

separate items but in combination as well, agrees with Fairchild that Power Integrations has

failed to make the requisite showing as to a causal nexus between its alleged lost sales

and the infringing feature.4

2. Price Erosion

Power Integrations contends it was necessary for it to reduce the price of its own

products in order to effectively compete with Fairchild’s infringing products. In other words,

Power Integrations contends it “reduce[d] its own prices on patented products to avoid

losing even more customers.” (See Mot. at 10:1-2.) As set forth above, however, Power

Integrations has failed to show a causal nexus between Fairchild’s sales and Fairchild’s

inclusion of Power Integrations’ patented features in its products. 

Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, Power Integrations has

failed to show a causal nexus between the claimed price erosion and the infringing feature.

3. Loss of Customer Goodwill

Power Integrations and Fairchild are competitors in a “design-wins” market. In a

design-wins market, “once a supplier is chosen to meet the needs of a new product line,

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 7 of 10
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

5

Broadcom also found, on the record presented therein, an “incumbency effect” that

gave the successful supplier an advantage in future competitions as well. See id. (citing to

record). Here, no such evidence has been submitted.

6

To the extent Power Integrations, in citing Broadcom at the hearing on the motion,

may have intended to suggest a causal nexus between a patented feature and demand for

a competing product is not required in a design-wins market, the Court disagrees. As the

Federal Circuit noted in Broadcom, “the undisputed evidence at trial linked the claimed

invention of the [plaintiff’s] patent to the success of the products incorporating it.” 

Broadcom, 732 F.3d at 1337; see also Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1362 (acknowledging

Broadcom’s finding of irreparable harm where parties competed in design-wins market “and

‘the undisputed evidence at trial linked the claimed invention of [plaintiff’s] patent to the

success of the products incorporating it’”) (quoting Broadcom, 732 F.3d at 1337) (emphasis

added).

8

the supplier’s component is essentially designed into the [customer’s] product for its life

cycle.” See Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013).5

Once again, however, the claimed loss is a lost sale, albeit a more significant sale

than one made to a single customer in a consumer goods market. In other words, the

difference between the two markets goes to the magnitude of the harm, and not to the type

of harm incurred. See, e.g., Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1362 (distinguishing “erosion in

reputation and brand distinction” from lost sales as “different type[s] of harm”).6

Accordingly, the Court finds Power Integrations is required to show a causal nexus

between the claimed loss of goodwill and the infringing features, which, as discussed

above, Power Integrations has failed to do.

4. Damage to Reputation

Power Integrations, citing Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co., 717 F.3d

1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013), contends it has suffered irreparable harm because Fairchild’s

infringing conduct has “undermine[d]” its reputation as an innovator. (See Mot. at 10:15.) 

Douglas Dynamics, however, is distinguishable on its facts. In Douglas Dynamics, the

Federal Circuit found “the record show[ed]” that the plaintiff therein “ha[d] earned itself a

reputation in the market as an innovator and trusted supplier,” and that the inclusion of the

patented feature in products considered “less prestigious and innovative” constituted

irreparable harm to such plaintiff’s reputation. See Douglas Dynamics, 717 F.3d at 1344-

45 (noting district court had “likened [plaintiff’s] snowplow to a Mercedes Benz S550 and

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 8 of 10
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

9

[defendant’s] snowplow to a Ford Taurus”). Here, by contrast, the only evidence offered as

to Power Integrations’ reputation is its unwillingness to license its patented technology and

the receipt, by itself and Balakrishnan, respectively, of the above-referenced two awards. 

Even assuming, arguendo, such evidence is sufficient to support an inference as to how

Power Integrations is perceived in the industry, and in particular, how it is perceived by

potential customers, Power Integrations has submitted no evidence suggesting Fairchild’s

products are in any manner considered inferior to Power Integrations’ products, or that

Fairchild’s inclusion of either patented feature has otherwise diminished Power Integrations’

reputation.

Accordingly, Power Integrations has failed to show irreparable harm based on an

“undermining” of its reputation.

4. Conclusion: Irreparable Harm

As set forth above, the Court finds Power Integrations has failed to show it has

suffered irreparable harm as a result of Fairchild’s infringement, and, accordingly, this

factor weighs against issuance of a permanent injunction.

B. Inadequacy of Monetary Damages

In the absence of a finding of irreparable injury, there can be no finding that legal

remedies are “inadequate to compensate for that injury,” see eBay, 547 U.S. at 391

(emphasis added), and, accordingly, the second eBay factor likewise weighs against

issuance of a permanent injunction.

C. Remaining eBay Factors

Because the Court finds Power Integrations has failed to meet its burden as to the

first two eBay factors, the Court does not address herein the remaining eBay factors. See,

e.g., Malibu Boats, LLC v. Nautical Boat Co., 997 F. Supp. 2d 866, 888 n.9 (E.D. Tenn.

2014) (citing Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 9 of 10
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

7

As noted above, the trial was conducted before the Federal Circuit’s decision in

VirnetX, 767 F.3d 1308.

10

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the instant motion for a permanent injunction is

hereby DENIED, without prejudice to Power Integrations’ filing a renewed motion after the

retrial on the issue of damages.7 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 687 Filed 02/12/15 Page 10 of 10