Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:04—cv-01371-JJF Document 486-3 Filed 05/23/2007 Page10f3
E h ` b `t B

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 486-3 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
ORRKK, HERRSNGTON St SUTCLIFFE LLP
O 1000 MARSH Ro/to
Memo max, ca 94025
ze! 6s0·e14»740a
ftzx 6.50-ammo;
O R R I C K WWW.ORRlCK.C()M
Brian H. Vande-rZanden
(650) 614-7629
May 16’ 2007 [email protected]
VIA E-MAIL
Michael R. Headley
Fish & Richardson P.C.
500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94036
Re; Power lntegrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor et al. (CA 04-1371 | IF)
Dear Michael:
We just today received your letter of May 14 and the enclosed 266-page document
production, documents purportedly to have recently been discovered by Klas Eklund.
These documents should have previously been produced by Power Integrations, at least in
advance of Mr. Eklund’s October 14, 2005 deposition. As we are now less than three weeks
from the start of trial, this new production is exceedingly untimely, and prejudices Fairchild’s
ability to prepare its case for trial.
Your letter incorrectly states that Fairchild received “most of these documents in some form
in earlier productions." Upon initial review, however, it appears that we have not seen the
majority of these documentsbefore, and count only 41 pages out of 266 as being duplicative
of prior productions.
These documents raise numerous questions. Please provide Power Integrations’ response to
each of the following questions:
1. Does Power lntegrations intend to rely upon any of the documents in this
production at trial? lf so, which ones?
2. How were these documents discovered by Mr. Eklund?
3. Why were these documents not produced earlier?
4. \X/here were these documents located when discovered by Mr. Eklund?

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 486-3 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
O R R I C K
Michael R. Headley
May 16, .2007
Page 2
5. Were these docunients part of a larger group of documents that Power
lntegrations has chosen not to produce?
6. ls Mr. Eklund in the possession of any other documents from the time prior
to the filing date of the ‘O75 patent, including from the time he worked at AMD?
Moreover, Fairchild will need to depose Mr. Eklund in light of this recent production. ln
order to have enough preparation time in advance of trial, we will need to take his deposition
sometime next week. Please let me know what days Mr. Eklund is available. lf Power
lntegrations is unwilling to make Mr. Eklund available, Fairchild will be forced to move to
exclude all of his testirnony at trial, whether live or by deposition.
Furthermore, many of the documents in this new production are difficult to read, and many
appear to have significant portions of text obscured, possibly cut off while copied. Please
provide us with better copies of these documents immediately. Additionally, we must
demand to be permitted to inspect the original versions of the entire document production.
Finally, I note that the newly—produced versions of the six Eklund pages Power lntegrations
hopes to rely upon to show invention of the ‘O75 patent deviate significantly from earlier
produced versions of these documents (ie. PX—29 and PX—30). For example, the second
page of PX—3O includes the number “2” in the upper right hand corner. Significantly, that
number is missing from the newly produced version of that document. lt is therefore
apparent that the version identified as PX—3O was modified so as to allow Power lntegrations
to claim an earlier invention date. This discrepancy, as well as others, completely cast the
authenticity of any versions of these documents into doubt. We must therefore demand that
you agree not to rely upon any version of PX—29 or PX—3O at trial.
ln light of the immediacy caused by Power lntegrations’ untiniely production, l must
demand a response to the issues raised in this letter by the end of business tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Brian H. VanderZanden
OHS West:260234l99.1