Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 361 Filed O9/08/2006 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-654-IBBB
222 DELAWARE AVENUE ACSMLE
P. O. BOX Il5O 30;-654-2067
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
September 8, 2006
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr. VIA E-FILING
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International
C.A. No. 04-1371 JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
This letter responds to Power Integrations’ ("PI") improper motion for reconsideration
regarding the C0urt’s August 22 Order (D.I. 330) granting Fairchild’s Motion to Compel Power
Integrations to Provide "Pared Down" Iniiingement Contentions For Trial.
PI’s motion for reconsideration offers no new facts or law and should be denied. As PI
recognizes, this is its second improper motion for reconsideration. In denying the iirst such
motion, the Court observed:
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-
Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins.
Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). The purpose
of the motion for reconsideration is not to "rehash arguments already b1iefed."
Dentsply Int’l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 385, 419 (D. Del. 1999). In
order to succeed, the party requesting reconsideration must show that at least one
of the following criteria applies: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2)
availability of new evidence not available when the Court made its decision; or
(3) need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Max’s Seafood Café by Lou—Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d at 677. "As a
general rule, motions for reconsideration should be granted ‘sparing1y."’ Karr v.
Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991)
[D.I. 329 at p. 2-3]

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 361 Filed O9/08/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
September 8, 2006
Page 2
PI offers no new law, attaches the same exhibit that was submitted and available when
the Court made its decision,] and does not even assert that there is a need to correct a clear error
of law or fact or any manifest injustice. Rather, PI simply rehashes exactly the same arguments
it briefed on the motion to compel. [See D.I. 298] Therefore, because PI does not meet any of
the requirements for a motion for reconsideration, the motion should be denied.
Any modification of the Court’s August 22 Order will severely prejudice Fairchild. As
Fairchild set forth in the underlying motion to compel, despite this Court’s Order at the May 31
pretrial conference that PI was to narrow and make clear to Fairchild the claims, products and
product groupings that will be asserted at trial, PI refused to do so and violated the Court’s
Order. [See D.I. 291] Fairchild did not immediately move to compel but instead repeatedly
asked PI to comply. PI continued to refiise to comply or work in good faith to narrow the case.
PI now attempts to negotiate with the Court. Fairchild requested negotiation of this issue months
ago, in light of the Court’s prior order, so that it could prepare for trial. But PI refused to
meaningfiilly discuss the issue and instead forced Fairchild to file the motion to compel. Having
done so, it may not now start the process over again. Indeed, by letter of August 29, 2006 PI has
finally set forth its asserted claims and product groupings. With trial to begin in three weeks, it
would be extremely prejudicial to allow PI to change its assertions yet again, at this late date.
PI’s motion for reconsideration is wholly improper and lacks any valid basis, therefore
Fairchild respectfully requests that it be denied.
Respectfiilly,
/s/ John G. Day
John G. Day
J GD
c: William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire
G. Hopkins Guy, HI, Esquire
Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire
172991.1
I PI admits this in its brief The exhibit to PI’s motion for reconsideration was Exhibit D to its
underlying briefing on the motion to compel. [D.I. 298 at Ex. D]