Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02581/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02581-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SYSTEM GENERAL CORPORATION, et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02581 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MAY 23, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M.:

Based on the parties’ papers, the Court finds that the motion for stay, which is now

ripe, should be heard on the same date as the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court is

advancing the hearing date on that motion. The parties shall be prepared to address both

motions at the hearing on May 23, 2008. The hearing set for May 30, 2008 is VACATED.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. 

Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

Case 5:04-cv-02581-JW Document 178 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court tentatively grants Power Integrations’

motion to dismiss, on the condition that Power Integrations re-file any future suit against

Defendants on the patents-in-suit in this judicial district. If Power Integrations is unwilling to

accept that condition and seeks to withdraw its motion, the Court tentatively grants

Defendants’ motion to stay pending re-examination of the patents-in-suit.

The parties each shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

1. If the Court imposed as a condition of dismissal that Power Integrations re-file

its claims in this district, would SG still oppose dismissal of its Counterclaims

without prejudice? If the Court imposed such a condition, would Power

Integrations withdraw its motion to dismiss? See Lau v. Glendora School Dist.,

792 F.2d 929, 930-91 (9th Cir. 1986). Does Power Integrations have any

additional authority that the Court could not impose such a condition on a

dismissal?

2. Given Power Integrations’ statement that it does not intend to refile its suit

immediately, what is System General’s best argument that the Court should

exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the Counterclaims?

3. Power Integrations withdrew the ‘079 and ‘481 Patents from the ITC

proceedings. Does it intend to maintain its claims in this action that Defendants

infringe the ‘079 and ‘481 Patents? 

4. Power Integrations notes that System General Corporation has been acquired by

Fairchild Semiconductor. If this case goes forward, does Power Integrations

intend to amend its complaint to include claims against Fairchild? 

5. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: May 20, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-02581-JW Document 178 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 2