Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 297 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TI-IE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
v. I C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR )
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FAIRCHILD )
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, )
Defendants. )
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE UNAUTHORIZED REPLY BRIEF
Defendants (collectively, "Fairchild") respectfully request that the Court strike the reply
letter brief (D.I. 295) submitted by plaintiff Power Integrations, Inc. ("Power Integrations”) in
support of its motion for reconsideration (D.I. 290) of this Court’s June 2, 2006 Order limiting
Power Integrations’ calculation of damages to the post—cornplaint period. The reasons for this
motion follow:
1. Local Rule 7.1.5 does not permit the filing of a reply brief in support of a motion
for reconsideration. Indeed, Rule 7.1.5 expressly states that the Court "will determine from the
motion and answer whether reargument will be granted" (emphasis added).
2. Yesterday, despite the Rule’s clear and unambiguous terms, Power Integrations
filed a reply letter brief in support of its motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 2, 2006
Order (D.I. 295; the "Unauthorized Reply"). Shortly after the Unauthorized Reply was filed,
Fairchild brought Rule 7.1.5 to Power Integrations’ attention and requested that Power I
Integrations comply with the Rule and withdraw it. See Ex. l.
4. Although they previously had followed Rule 7.1.5 in connection with their motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s August 2005 Order denying Power Integrations’ motion to
compel pre-suit damages discovery, counsel for Power Integrations responded that "[w]e do not
interpret Rule 7.1.5 as specifically prohibiting the filing of a reply brieiQ" and refused to

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 297 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
withdraw the Unauthorized Reply. See Ex. 2.
5. While Power Integrations’ is disappointed by the Court’s June 2, 2006 Order, and
understandably is desperate to inilate the less than S 1 million in sales made by Fairchild since
the tiling of the complaint into $ 35 million in purported price erosion damages, its discontent
does not permit Power Integrations’ to "thumb its nose" at this Court’s rules.
6. Accordingly, Fairchild respectfully requests that the Court enforce Local Rule
7.1.5 by striking Power lntegrations’ Unauthorized Reply. (A form of Order to that effect is
attached as Ex. 3). Altematively, should the Court wish to consider Power Integrations’
Unauthorized Reply, Fairchild respectfully requests the opportunity to address several
misstatements in the Unauthorized Reply.
ASHBY & GEDDES
/s/ John G. Day
Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114)
John G. Day (I.D. #2403).
Lauren E. Maguire (LD. #4261)
222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
P.O. Box 1 150
Wilmington, DE 19899
302-654-1888
sba1ick@ashby- geddes.com
j dag@ashby— geddes.com
hnaggire@ashby— geddes.com
Of Counsel: Attorneys for Ddendants
G. Hopkins Guy, HI
Vickie L. Feeman
Bas de Blank
Brian H. VanderZanden
Orrick, Herrington & Stucliffe LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 614-7400 _
Dated: July 14, 2006
171257.1

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 297 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 14th day of July, 2006, the attached DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE UNAUTHORIZED REPLY BRIEF was served upon the below-
named counsel of record at the address and in the manner indicated:
William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire HAND DELIVERY
Fish & Richardson, P.C.
919 N. Market Street
Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Fish & Richardson P.C.
225 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110-2804
Michael Kane, Esquire VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Fish & Richardson P.C.
60 South Sixth Street
3300 Dain Rauscher Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Howard G. Pollack, Esquire VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Fish & Richardson P.C.
500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
/s/ John G. Day
John G. Day