E h` b `t A
Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 336-3 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 4
Ftsn sz; RICHARDSON 1¤.c.
SOG Arguello Street
Suite 5oo
Redwood City, California
940634526
Frederick P. Fish
{BSS-{930 T€i€pl'101'l€
VIA FACSIMILE, E-MAIL, & U.S. MAIL $$0 839-$079
WK. Richardson 6
rSsa—ras¤ Facsimile
July 13, 2006 6’° 8â€"°"
Web Site
Bas de Blank ‘“"“’·F’·°°m
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Michael R- Hadley
Marsh Road [6jO] 859-5]*39
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Email V
Re: Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l hc°d[°:Y@fr`°°m
USDC-D. Del. - C.A. No. O4-1371-JIF
® Dear Bas:
Wim To simplify matters for trial, Power lntegrations will further narrow the asserted
â€Â°"°"’ claims to the following dozen:
DELAWARE - Cl3ll'I'1S 1, li", Eilld
NW YORK ’851 - claims 1, 2, and 4;
’366 - claims 1, 2, 9, and 14;
SAN DIEGO _
_ ’0'?`5 - claims 1 and 5.
TWIN ¤‘F·¤$ To summarize what is provided in Power Integrations’ experts’ infringement reports,
w,irH.Nei—¤~, ne I note that the following is a complete list of accused devices for the three circuit
patents:
FSDZOO; FSDZOOB; FSD210;FSD210B; FSDZIOH; FSD210HD; FSD21l; FSDSOO;
FSDL32l; FSDL321L; FSDI·I32l; FSDH321L; FSDL0165RN; PSD1\/[0265RN;
FSDM0265RNB; FSDHO265RN; FSDLO365RN; FSDLOBGSRNB; FSDMO365RN;
FSDMO365RNB; FSDLOIGSRL; FSDMU265RL; FSDHU265RL; FSDLO365RL;
FSDM036SRL; FSDM311, FSCM0565R, and the FSCMOTGSR.
Power Integrations’ circuit expert addressed these products in a representative
manner, specifically, that four parts (the FSD210, FSDL0365RN, FSDL0365RNB,
and the FSDM3 l 1) are representative of all of these accused devices. More
particularly, based on the evidence obtained during fact and expert discovery, Power
lntegrations believes, that for the purposes of infringement, these 4 parts are
representative of all the accused parts as follows:
The FSD210 is representative ofthe FSD200, FSDZOOB, FSD210, FSD2l0B,
FSD210H, FSD2l0HD, FSD21l and FSDSOO with regard to infringement of
the ’851 and ’366 patents (plus the FSCMOSGSR and FSCM0765R with
regard to the ’8'?6 patent).
Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 336-3 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 3 of 4
Frsrr at Rrcrmnoson inc.
Bas de Blank
July 13, 2006
Page 2
The FSDLOBGSRN is representative ofthe FSDL32l, FSDH321 ,
FSDLOl65RN, FSDM0265RN, FSDH0265RN, FSDL0365RN,
FSDM0365RN, FSDL32lL, FSDH321L, FSDLO165RL, FSDM0265RL,
FSDH0265RL, FSDL0365RL, and FSDM0365RL.
The FSDL0365RNB is representative ofthe FSDM0265RNB,
FSDLOSGSRNB, and FSDM0365RNB for purposes of infringement.
The FSDM3 ll stands alone.
Power Integrations asks that Fairchild stipulate that these parts are representative as
set forth above for purposes of infringement, as Power Inte gration’s expert treated
them in his reports, to simplify the tri al presentation and to remove any doubts
regarding proofs regarding materially identical parts. To this end we also note that
F ai rchild’s experts did not dispute the treatment of these parts as representative
during this case.
Also as explained in Power lntegrations’ expert reports, the patents are asserted as
follows:
’85l patent- against FSD2l0 as representative;
’8'?6 patent — against FSD2I0 as representative, P`SDL0365RN as representative, and
FSDL0365RNB as representative;
’366 patent- against FSD210 as representative, FSDLO365RNB as representative,
and PSDM311.
The following is a complete list of the accused devices for the ’075 patent:
FSD200; FSD200B; FSD210; FSD210B; FSDZIOH, FSDZIOHD; FSD21 1; FSDSOO;
FSDL32l; FSDL321L; FSDH321; FSDH321L; FSDLOl65RN; FSDM0265RN;
FSDM0265RNB; FSDI-10265RN; PSD}-I0265RNB; FSDL0365RN; FSDLOBGSRNB;
FSDMOSGSRN; FSDM0365RNB; FSDLOIGSRL; FSDM0265RL; FSDM0265RLB;
FSDHO265RL; FSDH0265RLB; FSDL0365RL; FSDL0365RLB; FSDM0365RL;
FSDM0365RLB; FSDM3] l; FSDM0565; FSDMO7652; FSDH565, FSDHO165; the
FAN`7601 series.
Given the nature of the patent, Power Inte grations’ expert addressed infringement of
the ’075 patent with respect to the process used to manufacture the accused devices,
specifically the SDG3 or SDG4 process and their 75V or ~700V transistors device
structures, but that does not impact the list of accused products.
Power Integrations further asks that Fairchild stipulate that the parts listed above are
made with the SDG3 and! or SDG4 processes. The proofs at trial will focus on the
Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 336-3 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 4 of 4
Frsn se Rrcrtxanson r>.c.
Bas de Blank
July 13, 2006
Page 3
process infomation as was done by both sides’ experts during the case. The
requested stipulation will simplify the trial presentation and remove any doubts
regarding the effect ofthe proofs regarding the processes on the products sold by
Fairchild.
While Fairchild is considering this proposal, Power Integrations asks that Fairchild
extend the deadline to respond to Fa.irchild’s Motion to Compel "Pared Down" claims
to Tuesday, July 18, to pennit the parties to work out the particulars of the stipulation.
Regardless of your position as to the stipulation, let me know your position on the
extension by the end of the day, and we can work out the drafting ofthe formal
stipulation thereafter.
Sincerely,
%/4% -
Michael R. Hea