Free Verdict Sheet - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 345

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. C.A. No. 04-1371 JJF

POWER INTEGRATIONS' [PROPOSED] SPECIAL VERDICT AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY - VALIDITY

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '876 PATENT Anticipation of the '876 Patent 1. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the '876 Patent is anticipated and therefore invalid? (A "YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A "NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES Obviousness of the '876 Patent 2. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the '876 Patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES NO NO

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 345

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 2 of 5

3. If you answered " YES" to question 2, indicate below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining Claim 1 of the '876 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '851 PATENT Anticipation of the '851 Patent 4. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the '851 Patent is anticipated and therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES Obviousness of the '851 Patent 5. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the '851 Patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES NO NO

6. If you answered " YES" to question 5, indicate below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining Claim 1 of the '851 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

2

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 345

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 3 of 5

VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '366 PATENT Anticipation of the '366 Patent 7. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that claim 14 of the ' 366 Patent is anticipated and therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES Obviousness of the '366 Patent 8. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 14 of the ' 366 Patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES NO NO

9. If you answered " YES" to question 8, indicate below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining Claim 14 of the ' 366 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (CONTINUED BELOW)

3

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 345

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 4 of 5

VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '075 PATENT Obviousness of the '075 Patent 10. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 5 of the ' 075 Patent is obvious and therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES NO

11. If you answered " YES" to question 10, indicate below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining Claim 5 of the ' 075 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 12. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 5 of the ' 075 Patent lacks enablement and is therefore invalid? (A " YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A " NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.) YES NO Dated: __________________

You must each sign this Verdict Form: (foreperson)

4

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 345

Filed 09/01/2006

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 1, 2006, I electronically filed with the Clerk of Court POWER INTEGRATIONS' [PROPOSED] SPECIAL VERDICT AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY - VALIDITY using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing(s) to the following Delaware counsel. In addition, the filing will also be sent via hand delivery: Steven J. Balick, Esq. John G. Day, Esq. Ashby & Geddes 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor P. O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899

I hereby certify that on September 1, 2006, I have served by Federal Express, the document(s) to the following non-registered participants: G. Hopkins Guy, III Bas de Blank Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attorneys for Defendants FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

/s/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr. ([email protected])