Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 63.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 28, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 402 Words, 2,502 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8723/444.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 63.6 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 444 Filed 1 1/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
Asn-nav & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLOR5 AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-654-IBBB
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX I|5O $02-aa-:-2067
WILMINGTON. DELAWARE ¤9899
November 28, 2006
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court ,
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
We received a request Hom a member of Your Honor's staff today that Fairchild submit a
letter concerning the impact of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in the pending KSR v.
T eleflex case. Since KSR concerns the standard for whether a claim is invalid as obvious — a key
issue in the forthcoming trial- we believe that the decision could have a significant impact on
this case.
Speciically, [CSR concerns whether the Federal Circuit’s teaching-suggestion-motivation
test for determining whether an invention is "obvious" is the proper standard under 35 U.S.C.
§l03 (a). Any change in this basic standard would dramatically affect the case since Fairchild
has raised obviousness defenses to all seven asserted claims. Furthermore, this standard already
is actively in play in this case. Power Integrations is currently seeking to exclude admissible
prior art on the ground that Fairchild’s experts did not set forth sufficiently detailed "motivation
to combine" contentions in their expert reports. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision as to
whether this will remain the correct standard could significantly affect the outcome of the case.
We did not understand Your Honor to be soliciting the parties’ views as to what the Court
should do about this potential change in the law, but rather, we simply were asked to inform the
Court whether we believe the ICSR decision could have an impact on this case. We therefore
have refrained from offering our opinion on the subject, but we would be pleased to do so
promptly if Your Honor would find that helpful.
Respectfully,
/s/ Steven J Balick
Steven J. Balick

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 444 Filed 1 1/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. F aman, Jr.
November 28, 2006
Page 2
SJ B/dmf
175549.1
c: William J. Marsden, Jr. Esquire Gay hand)
Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Howard G. Pollack, Esquire (via electronic mail)
G. Hopkins Guy, III, Esquire (via electronic mail)