Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04854/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04854-5/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 DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Before the Court is the “Motion to Dismiss PI’s First Amended Complaint

[(“FAC”)],” filed March 3, 2016, by defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., 

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

“Fairchild”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff 

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

replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on today’s date. Howard G. Pollack 

and Michael R. Headley of Fish & Richardson P.C. appeared on behalf of Power 

Integrations. Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick, and Patrick J. Stafford of Paul 

Hastings LLP appeared on behalf of Fairchild. Having considered the parties’ respective 

written submissions and the arguments of counsel at the hearing, the Court rules as 

follows.

For the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the hearing, the motion to 

dismiss is hereby DENIED. In particular, even assuming arguendo the accused products 

in the instant case are essentially the same as the accused products in Power 

Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., No. 09-5235 (N.D. Cal. 

filed Nov. 4, 2009) (“Fairchild IV”), the Court finds Power Integrations’s first cause of 

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 40 Filed 04/08/16 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

action is not barred by claim preclusion.

1 Further, the Court finds said cause of action is 

not an improper collateral attack on the Court’s order in Fairchild IV granting “Fairchild’s 

Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Kelley’s Infringement Report Containing New 

Infringement Positions,” and that the FAC complies with the pleading requirements of 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662 (2009).

Fairchild’s response to the FAC shall be filed on or before April 22, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 1 Although the Court has found claim preclusion would apply to the extent a claim

based on any such product had accrued prior to the filing of the complaint in Fairchild IV, 

see Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., 803 F.3d 620, 626 n.4, 627 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (holding “claim preclusion . . . does not apply to damages accruing after the filing of 

the complaint”; further holding “claims that have accrued at the time of the complaint 

generally must be brought together”), a dispositive determination in that regard cannot be 

made at this stage of the proceedings as there is no allegation in the FAC pertaining to

the release dates of the accused products. 

Case 3:15-cv-04854-MMC Document 40 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2