Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05235-147/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 the same order, the Court denied two other administrative motions to seal, which

concerned two other reply briefs filed in support of motions to exclude.

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 RE: FAIRCHILD’S MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS

MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS

AND TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN D.

PUTNAM; DIRECTIONS TO FAIRCHILD

Before the Court is the “Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Fairchild’s Brief in

Further Support of Fairchild’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Jonathan

D. Putnam,” filed September 18, 2015, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor

International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild Corporation

(collectively, “Fairchild”), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, by which Fairchild seeks

permission to seal portions of its reply brief submitted in support of its motion to exclude

expert testimony. 

By order filed October 26, 2015, the Court deferred ruling on the administrative

motion,1

 and directed each party to file a supplemental response identifying the portions of

said brief that contain that party’s confidential information. On November 9, 2015, each

party timely filed its supplemental response. Having read and considered the supplemental

responses, the Court finds good cause to seal those portions identified therein as sealable

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 946 Filed 01/26/16 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

material.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the administrative motion, and Fairchild is

hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than February 2, 2016, a version of

the reply brief in which the parties’ confidential material, as identified in their respective

supplemental responses, is redacted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05235-MMC Document 946 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 2