Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-168/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

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.

Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC 

ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING 

EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT; 

DENYING AS MOOT FAIRCHILD'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

EXPEDITE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND 

HEARING DATE

Re: Dkt. No. 1041

Before the Court is defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., 

Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation’s (collectively 

“Fairchild”) Administrative Motion, filed March 27, 2017, by which Fairchild asks the Court 

to set an expedited briefing schedule on its Motion for Order Staying Execution of 

Judgment and Waiver of Requirement to Post Supersedeas Bond (“Motion to Stay”), also 

filed March 27, 2017, and to hear such motion on an emergency basis on April 5, 2017, 

rather than May 5, 2017. On March 28, 2017, Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power 

Integrations”) filed opposition to Fairchild’s Administrative Motion. Having considered the 

parties’ respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows.

In support of the instant motion, Fairchild states that if the Court does not set an 

expedited briefing schedule and grant a stay on or before April 7, 2017, its corporate 

parent “will be in default of [a] credit agreement” (see Administrative Motion, at 2:17)

unless Fairchild posts a bond by that date. In opposition, Power Integrations argues any

such “time pressure” is “of Fairchild’s own making” and that an expedited briefing 

schedule would “prejudice its ability to fully address the substance of the [Motion to 

Stay].” (See Opp. to Administrative Motion, at 4:1-4.) 

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 1048 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Given the parties’ respective concerns, the Court finds it preferable to temporarily 

stay execution of the judgment pending its ruling on the Motion to Stay. See, e.g., C.B. v. 

Sonora School Dist., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (imposing temporary 

stay pending resolution of motion to stay), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 769 

F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, execution of the judgment in the instant action is hereby STAYED 

pending resolution of Fairchild’s Motion To Stay and, in light thereof, Fairchild’s 

Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 1048 Filed 03/29/17 Page 2 of 2