Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 299 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
FISH dc RICHARDSON P.C.
Suite 1100
919 N. Marker Street
1*.0. Box 1114
\l€/ilrriingron, Uelriwzire
Is "..’> Z`·` r-
i“d‘“;;5l;-gg; jury 14] 2006 1989) HY4
'l`clepl1oi1e
Rielmrtlson 30; 652-5070
Igww The l--lonorahle Joseph J Faman Jr r . .
_ _ _ _ ' ’ ` PUBLIC VERSION lqgguyulc
United States District Court SO2 6,24,607
tor the District of Delaware I __
itil litre Sturt
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Answer to Defendants’ l\/lotion to Compel "i’ared Down" infringement
Contentions [DJ. 291]; USDC~D. Del. CA. No. O4-137l UF
Powei·[12iegr·aii0ns, Inc. v. Fairchild Semicoizciuctor lrztermzfiomzl
Dear ludge Farnan:
i¥`airchild’s motion to compel pared down claims [1).1. 29ll is unnecessary. lt ignores the
'm"`NT" parties’ mutual understanding of what products are at issue and how they should be
·“’t""“ grouped lor purposes of analysis, as evidenced in the parties’ expert reports, and
rri»s·1·r»r Fairchild persists in pressing the motion despite a stipulation offered by Power
DM_,__,\s lntcgrations further narrowing the number of claims and making explicit the product
Dmwlw groupings the parties’ experts have mutually used. The motion should he denied.
NW "°‘“‘ First, in an ettort to arbitrarily and unfairly limit Power lntegrations to presenting a single
its siren claim horn each oi` the four patents-in-suit at trial, Fairchild has misrepresented the
,,,_,wN VMW, record. [Id. at 4.] Fairchild’s motion states that Power lntegrations "ret`uses to identity
WW wm the claims it will assert at trial" [id. at 2], that "Pl must also identify the accused devices
lid.}, and that it "cannot determine what product ‘groups’ will ultimately be accused at
W"$’"N°T°N’ M trial? [Id. at 3.] All of these statements are false, as Power lntegrations` experts, in their
expert reports and for purposes of proving infringement, treated four devices (for the
circuit patents) and two nearly identical processes (tor the device structure patent) as
representative oi all of the accused Fairchild products and processes and Fairchilgjg
experts did not challenge the representative groupings in their responsive ggptg. [See
lix. A (Blauschild Infringement Report) at 3, 18-19, 37 and 52; Ex. B (Shields
lnhingernent Report) at 1-3 and 10.] Since the parties` own experts agree on what
devices are accused and how they can be grouped, Fairchiid’s claim ol severe prejudice
[Di. 291 at 4] is baseless.
in an etlort to avoid troubling the Court with a nonexistent dispute, during the meet and
confer process Power lntegrations consistently referred Fairchild to the expe1ts’ reports
when Fairchild feigned ignorance ofthe claims and devices at issue. [See C (de
Blank letter ot` 6/30/06 to Headley noting "[y}ou suggested that this was set forth in
Power integrations` expert reports").] When that inexplicably failed and Fairchild
proceeded with its tiling, Power lntegrations provided Fairchild with an explicit
stipulation that further narrowed the claims at issue (from 18 to 12) and set iorth the
representative devices in the manner already spelled out in Power lntegrations’ experts’
reports (which, again, Fairchild’s experts had accepted). [Ex. D.} Fairchild refused the
stipulation. [Ex. E.}

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 299 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
Prsrr sz RICIVIARDSON r>.c.
The Honorable Joseph J. Parnan, Jr.
July 14, 2006
Page 2
Despite Pairchild’s protestations, there is no "ambush" here. Power Integrations is not
adding asserted claims or representative devices, and in fact has significantly narrowed
its proofs for trial—just as it said it would at the pretrial conference.
Finally, in addition to an absence of factual support, Pairchild"s motion notably fails to
provide any authority (statutory, case law, local rule, or otherwise) to support the relief it
requests. The first phase of this trial (infringement, willfulness and damages) can and
should be tried to verdict in no more than one week (12-13 hours per side), using the
number of claims and product groupings Power Integrations has committed to. Power
Integrations respectfully requests that the Court not further limit the scope of its case.
Respectfugy, B
J §g_0g,_,_,. .......... .. .
'lr
John P... orvath (#4557)
JPH:sb
cc Clerk of Court (via ECP and hand delivery)
Steven J. Balick (via ECP and hand delivery)
G. Hopkins Guy (via e-mail and first class mail)
50360085.doc