Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:04—cv-01371-JJF Document 502-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page10f3
E h ` b `t C

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 502-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
?(;(0Ig(;2(lR;I:R:(;};f)iTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025
0 R R n c K C‘;J?.i’.i.1Z;.T‘L‘Z.
Gabriel M. Ramsey
December 1, 2006 (650) °14`73€T1
gl"8IT1S€[email protected]
vm Euzcrnomc M/ui
Howard G. Pollack
Fish 8c Richardson P.C.
500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94036
Re: Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor et al. lCA 04-1371 ||Fl
Dear Howard:
I write to raise an extremely serious and troubling issue.
As you know, on November 22, 2006, I wrote regarding Power Integrations’ PX37. This
document had been Exhibit No. 1 to the deposition of Klas Eklund and was bates-labeled
» KE00001-KEOOOO6. At that time I requested that PX37 be divided into three exhibits-—(1)
KE00001-KE00004, (2) KE00005 and (3) KE00006.
The pages labeled KE00001-KEOOOO4 were a group of pages apparently dated September
26, 1984. The page labeled KE00005, as produced at Mr. Eklund’s deposition, was undated.
Fairchild relied upon this fact in its motion for summary judgment. [Mot. Summ. judg.
Invalidity ‘075 Patent, p. 8] Power Integrations never indicated that this fact was in any way
in dispute or inaccurate. The subsequent page, labeled KEO0006, was dated "1 —85."
On November 29, we received a letter from Michael Headley indicating that Power
Integrations would separate PX37 into two separate trial exhibits. Power Integrations
provided two new exhibits, as follows:
• New exhibit PX29 was comprised of what appear to be KE00001-KE00004, although
the new pages were not Bates-labeled.
• New exhibit PX30 appeais to be materially different from what Power Integrations
previously produced as Bates labeled as KE00005 and KEOOOO6. There were significant
changes made to these pages, compared with what was originally produced to Fairchild.

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 502-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
O R R l C K
Howard G. Pollack
December 1, 2006
Page 2
First, the document apparently corresponding to KEOOOO5 was previously undated, but it
now has the date "-85." written in. Similarly, KEOOOO6 now has the number "1" written
in the upper right-hand comer and KEOOOO5 now has the number "2" written in the
upper right-hand corner. None of this information was included in previously produced
documents. Further, in the new version of the document the order of pages KEOOOOS
and KEOOOO6 was switched. That is, in the new version of the document KEOOOO6 was
inserted before KEOOOO5. Finally, like PX29, the new PX3O was not Bates-labeled.
Fairchild must be permitted to investigate the foregoing changes to these documents, as it
appears this evidence is different from that previously produced in the case. Fairchild
demands that Klas Eklund be made available for deposition. Particularlyg if Mr. Eklund is
currently in the United States, the deposition should proceed as soon as possible, in order to
maximize convenience. We are prepared to conduct this deposition as soon as next week
Further, Fairchild demands the immediate production of (a) the original version of the
document constituting PX37, and (b) the original versions of the documents constituting
PX29 and PX30. Fairchild plans to have each of these documents forensically tested to
determine their authenticity and dates.
Please contact me as soon as possible to make arrangements for Mr. Eklund’s deposition
and the provision of the foregoing documents for forensic testing.
Sincerely,
le
abri IM. Ramse