Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 334 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE .
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a : I
Delaware corporation, : ¥
piaintiff, Z I
v. Z C.A. No. 04—l37I—JJF
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR i . I
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware :
corporation, and FAIRCHILD :
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a : I
Delaware corporation, :
Defendants. ; - ;
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion in Limine (D.I. 271) °
filed by Defendants, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. I
and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (collectively, I
“Fairchild”) requesting the Court to preclude Plaintiff, Power s
Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”), from presenting expert ;
reports from a previously undisclosed expert, Francis Lum, Q
alleging that certain third party cell phone chargers and DVD I
players imported into the United States incorporated two of the I
accused Fairchild devices. Fairchild contends that these reports f
are untimely, because they were produced after the close of fact é
discovery and I8 days after the deposition of Power Integrations’ I
damages expert witnesses. Fairchild also contends that these I
reports are irrelevant hearsay, because Power Integrations cannot I
prove that these devices were imported into the United States =

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 334 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 4
after October 20, 2004, and Power Integrations has no evidence S
that Fairchild induced the importation of these devices. p
In response, Power Integrations contends that Mr. Lum is not E
an expert witness but a third party who was hired to perform the p
administrative task of documenting the presence of Fairchild’s
accused products in items imported into the United States by C
disassembling the items and photographing them. Power
Integrations contends that Mr. Lum's reports demonstrate that
Fairchild's infringing parts come into the United States. Power ‘
Integrations contends that they will introduce further evidence U
at trial of inducement, and therefore, the reports are relevant l
circumstantial evidence demonstrating Fairchild's infringement.
Power Integrations also contends that it will make Mr. Lum
available for deposition and will provide Fairchild with some
additional discovery, but that there is no reason for further
expert technical rebuttal testimony, because Mr. Lum is not an
expert witness. .
The Court agrees with Power Integrations that the reports at
issue are not expert reports, but reports of a factual nature.
However, document production closed in this case on June 30,
2005, and the close of fact discovery relevant to liability was
September 30, 2005.l (D.I. 17). Although Fairchild repeatedly
1 The Court extended the last day to complete fact
witness depositions until November 14, 2005, to accommodate an
additional deposition requested by Defendants.
2

Case1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 334 Filed 08/24/2006 Page30f4
I
, P
asked Power Integrations to provide it with the basis for its =
allegations that Fairchild’s accused devices were imported into
the United States and that Fairchild induced this importation, é
Power Integrations provided no response prior to the close of
these deadlines. Indeed, it appears from Mr. Lum’s reports that l
the orders for the products examined by Mr. Lum were not placed
until April 18, 2006, more than six months after the close of .
fact discovery in this case per the initial Scheduling Order. I
Further, the depositions of numerous Power Integrations'
witnesses demonstrate that Power Integrations had no evidence U
prior to April 18, 2006, that Fairchild’s accused devices were E
imported into the Untied States. (D.I. 271, Exh. E—I). While it i
is true that the Court extended damages discovery until August 3
18, 2006, and Power Integrations produced the reports in question
prior to that deadline, the Court finds that the reports at issue
are more relevant to liability issues than to damages issues.
Power Integrations acknowledges that its reports have little to
do with damages stating that “any impact [from Mr. Lum’s reports]
on the parties' damages cases will be minimal." (D.I. 276 at 3).
In these circumstances, the Court is persuaded that the feparts
are untimely, and therefore, the Court will grant Defendants'
Motion.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fairchild’s Motion
in Limine (D.I. 271) requesting the Court to preclude Power
3

Case1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 334 Filed 08/24/2006 Page40f4
!
Integreticns from presenting Mr. Lum’s reports is GRANTED.
August; 24, 2006 I _
Date ED TATE DISTRICT JUDG =
i
I
` W
i
4