Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:04—cv-01371-JJF Document 86-2 Filed 08/22/2005 Page1 0f4
E h` b `t A

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86-2 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 2 of 4
FISH 8L RICHARDSON P.C.
500 Arguello Street
Suite 500
Redwood City, California
94063-1526
Frederick P. Fish
Igss-193Q TClCPl'lOHC
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL 650 850-5070
WK- Ri¤h¤dS<>¤ 650/614-7401
1859*951 Facsimile
August 10, 2005 °’° 8”"°"
Web Site
Bas de Blank ‘”‘”“’·f‘·°°“‘
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP H. I IR. H u
Marsh Road (650) 839-$139
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Email
Re: Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intemationall°adl°y@fr‘°°m
USDC-D. Del. - C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF
® Dear Bas:
AUSTIN This letter furthers our recent discussions regarding discovery issues and responds to
“°”°N your letter of yesterday aftemoon regarding same. I address various issues separately
DALLAS for clarity.
Nw YORK Depositions of PI employees
SAN DIEGO First and foremost, we need to reschedule the deposition of David Kung. I just
"L'°°" VALLEY learned that he is in the hospital and likely to remain there throughout the week.
TWIN CITIES When he returns to work, I will inquire as to his availability for deposition later this
wrsumemu, ue month or in September. My apologies for any inconvenience, but I will keep you
posted as I hear anything further.
Per your request during our call, I am confirming that Mr. Bell will be Power
Integrati0ns’ 30(b)(6) witness with respect to commercial embodiment of the ’075
patent as called for in Topics 6 and 9 of Fairchild’s Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice.
Your letter notes that Fairchild will not proceed with the depositions of Mr. Renouard
and Mr. Lelieur as previously agreed in light of some outstanding discovery you feel
owed, but it inaccurately states that I agreed there was any tardy production by Power
Integrations. During our call, you raised as chief among the alleged deficiencies a
lack of signed licenses in PI’s production, and I offered to look into the matter.
Having done so, I note several signed licenses with various companies, including
those produced at PH: 22256, PIF22575, PlF22580, PIF2357l, and PIF23640, among
others. I understand your other basis for refusing to take their depositions to be a
belief that Fairchild is entitled to certain damages-related discovery in a form other
than the source documents Ms. Steele has already identified for you. Your demand
calls for information that is the proper focus of expert testimony, and Power
Integrations has no obligation to compile such information before the deadlines for
expert disclosures. As such, neither alleged deficiency provides any basis for
rescheduling the depositions of Mr. Renouard and Mr. Lelieur, and I reiterate that

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86-2 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 3 of 4
FISH az RICHARDSON 1>.c.
Bas de Blank
August l0, 2005
Page 2
Fairchild’s refusal to take their depositions is at its own peril. If you have some other
basis for moving their currently-scheduled depositions, though, please let me know as
soon as possible.
Your letter also inaccurately recounts the list of Power Integrations employees who
will be testifying in response to Fairchild’s several 30(b)(6) notices. As I clearly set
forth this list in my letter to you of August 4, 2005, I will not repeat it here.
Degositions of Fairchild employees
I have still not heard anything from you regarding Fairchild’s 30(b)(6) witnesses for
sales, marketing, and other corporate topics, and your delay is prejudicing Power
Integrations’ ability to prepare for depositions. I presume you are near to finalizing
dates for the 30(b)(6) witnesses, including likely witnesses Dan Godbout, Brent
Rowe, and Stephen Jensen as mentioned during our call, but we need an identification
of the Fairchild witnesses as soon as possible. We will serve 30(b)(l) notices for
Fairchild employees shortly, but that is no reason to delay getting me information
regarding the identity, topics, and availability for 30(b)(6) witnesses.
We also need to discuss the plans for Fairchild’s compliance with the Court order
issued yesterday. Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss this issue so that
we can make the necessary arrangements.
Depositions of third parties
I thank you for confirming that you will accept a subpoena on behalf of Mr. Mon·ill.
I did not ask during our call whether you would similarly accept a subpoena on behalf
of Philip Woo, but I assume that you will do so in light of his role in drafting the
earlier opinion letter for Fairchild. I will send you both subpoenas shortly, so let me
know if you will not accept Mr. Woo’s subpoena as soon as possible and we will
make the necessary arrangements to serve him. I ask now that you inquire as to their
availability for depositions to speed up the process, but absent any indication as to
their availability I will include place-holder dates in their subpoenas.
I am checking on Mr. Go’s availability for deposition, but I await further word from
you regarding whether you intend to proceed with any deposition of Mr. Schatzel in
light of your earlier conversation with him. Per our previous discussions, though, we
will also wait to schedule any remaining depositions of the other attomeys who
played minor roles in the prosecution of the Power Integrations patents until after Mr.
Go’s deposition, at which point you will know whether any such discovery is
necessary.

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86-2 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 4 of 4
FISH at RICHARDSON 1>.c.
Bas de Blank
August 10, 2005
Page 3
Although we discussed Mr. Eklund during our call on Monday, your letter
inaccurately reports that I stated Power Integrations will not depose Mr. Eklund. I
made no representation either way with respect to Mr. Eklund. I await yom· response
to my offer to work to schedule the deposition of Mr. Eklund, though, should
Fairchild wish to take testimony &om Mr. Eklund.
Sincerely,
Michael R. He
sozssszsaoc