Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04854/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04854-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation
Counter-claimant
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Counter-claimant
Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Power Integrations, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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. 15-cv-04854-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 73

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC 

 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

 Re: Dkt. No. 1006

Before the Court are two motions to stay filed by defendants Fairchild 

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

(Taiwan) Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”) on, respectively, November 10, 2016 

(Case No. 15-4854) and November 11, 2016 (Case No. 09-5235). Plaintiff Power 

Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) has filed opposition to each motion, to which 

Fairchild has filed separate replies. Having read and considered the papers filed in 

support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court rules as follows.1

//

//

 1

By orders filed December 12, 2016, the Court took the matters under submission.

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 80 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

A. Case No. 15-4854 – “Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review and 

Reexamination”

Fairchild moves to stay all proceedings in Case No. 15-4854 pending resolution of 

six challenges filed with the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). 

The Court, having considered the relevant factors, see Telemac Corp. v. 

Teledigital, Inc., 450 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (setting forth three nonexclusive factors: (1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been 

set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of a case; and (3) 

whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the 

nonmoving party”) finds, for the reasons stated by Fairchild, each such factor weighs in 

favor of a stay.2

 

The Court however, does not find a stay of the scope and length requested by 

Fairchild is warranted. In particular, to the extent Fairchild seeks a stay pending 

resolution of IPR Nos. 2016-01589, 2016-01590, and 2016-01597, the Court finds 

Fairchild has failed to show good cause, said petitions pertaining solely to claims not 

implicated in the present case; further, as to the remaining three challenges, IPR No. 

2016-00809, IPR No. 2016-01588, and Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/008,326, the 

Court, at this time, declines to extend the stay for a period encompassing appeals from 

the PTAB’s ruling, without prejudice to Fairchild’s renewing such request, as appropriate, 

at a later date. 

 2 As to the third factor, although the Court is not persuaded by Fairchild’s 

argument that Power Integrations’ failure to move for a preliminary injunction is 

dispositive, the Court agrees that Power Integrations has failed to identify the type of 

consequences courts have recognized in finding undue prejudice or clear tactical 

disadvantage. See, e.g., Sliptrack Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1349 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (reversing order granting stay, where stay potentially would prevent 

plaintiff from raising in district court issue of priority of invention); Robert Bosch

Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Cardiocom, LLC, No. C 14-1575 EMC, 2014 WL 3107447, at *5

(N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) (noting, as example of “dilatory . . . tactics,” party’s “seeking 

reexamination on the eve of trial or after protracted discovery”) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). 

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 80 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

B. Case No. 09-5235 – “Motion to Stay”

Fairchild moves to stay all proceedings in Case No. 09-5235 pending resolution of

two IPR proceedings and Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, No. 

2015-1329, -1388, an appeal before the Federal Circuit arising from a case brought by 

Power Integrations against Fairchild in the District of Delaware (“Fairchild II”). 

First, to the extent Fairchild seeks a stay pending resolution of Fairchild II, such 

ground is no longer applicable, as the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Fairchild II on

December 12, 2016. (See Statement of Recent Decision, filed Dec. 12, 2016, Ex. A.). 

To the extent Fairchild seeks a stay pending resolution of the two IPR 

proceedings, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by Power Integrations, each of the 

three relevant factors, see Telemac Corp., 450 F.Supp.2d at 1111, weighs against a

stay.3 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. The motion to stay all proceedings in Case No. 15-4854 is hereby GRANTED 

and said action is hereby STAYED pending resolution of IPR Nos. 2016-00809 and 2016-

01588 and Reexamination No. 90/008,326. All existing pretrial and trial deadlines and 

dates are hereby VACATED in said action. No later than one year from the date of this 

order, and every 180 days thereafter, the parties shall file a joint status report to apprise 

the Court of the status of the inter partes and reexamination proceedings.

2. The motion to stay all proceedings in Case No. 09-5235 is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 3 In this instance, as to the third factor, the Court, given the late stage of the case, 

finds persuasive Power Integrations’ argument as to tactical disadvantage. See, e.g., Bosch, 2014 WL 3107447, at *5 (noting, as example of “dilatory . . . tactics,” party’s 

“seeking reexamination on the eve of trial or after protracted discovery”) (internal 

quotation and citation omitted). 

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 80 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 3