Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-32/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 1

 By said motion, defendants seek to file under seal an exhibit in support of one of

the below-referenced declarations.

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. 09-05235 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S ORDER OF AUGUST 28, 2013

Before the Court is defendants’ Motion for Relief (hereinafter, “Objection”), filed

September 11, 2013, by which defendants object to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James’s

August 28, 2013, order denying defendants’ request to amend their infringement

contentions. Also before the Court is defendants’ Administrative Motion, filed September

11, 2013, for leave to file a portion of their Objection under seal.1

Defendants’ Objection is based primarily on declarations, not previously submitted

to Magistrate Judge James (see Objection at 3 n.2), pertaining to difficult personal

concerns bearing upon the ability of defendants’ technical expert to assist in the

preparation of the proposed amendments. Under such circumstances, defendants’

Objection is, in essence, a motion for reconsideration based on newly-offered evidence. 

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 234 Filed 09/13/13 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

See Civil L.R. 7-9.

Accordingly, defendants’ Objection is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to

defendants’ filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, to be presented to

Magistrate Judge James.

In light of the above, defendants’ Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 234 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 2