Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 266 Filed 06/O2/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a :
Delaware corporation, :
Plaintiff, -
v. Z C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR E _
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware:
corporation, and FAIRCHILD : l
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a : ,
Delaware corporation, : K
Defendants. ; 1
mzuomwnum oruozn Q)
4
Pending before the Court are six summary judgment motions E
filed by Defendants, Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. §
and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (collectively i
“Fairchild"): (1) a Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-
Infringement of Claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876 (D.I.
204); (2) a Motion For Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claim 1
of the ‘876 Patent (D.I. 207); (3) a Motion For Summary Judgment
Of Non—infringement Of U.S. Patent No. 4,811,075 (D.I- 210): (4)
a Motion For Summary Judgment Of Unenforceability And Invalidity
Of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,107,851 and 6,229,366 (D.I. 213): (5) a
Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Of Claims 1 and 5 of
U.S. Patent No. 4,811,075 (D.I. 215); and (6) a Motion For
Partial Summary Judgment Of Non—infringement (Foreign Sales)

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 266 Filed 06/O2/2006 Page 2 of 4
(D.I. 218).1 In response, Power Integrations has filed a Joint Q
Counterstatement In Response To Six Of Fairchild’s Seven Motions
For Summary Judgment (D.I. 233), and Fairchild has filed a Reply
Brief (D.I. 244).
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure a party is entitled to summary judgment if a court
determines from its examination of “the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any,” that there are no genuine issues of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining §
whether there is a triable dispute of material fact, a court must E
review all of the evidence and construe all inferences in the H
light most favorable to the non—moving party. Goodman v. Mead
Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir. 1976). The moving
party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of
material fact is in dispute. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n. l0 (1986)).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, Rule 56(c) requires
the non—moving party to:
1 The Court notes that Fairchild did not comply with the
Court's February 7, 2005 Order requiring it to file a statement
certifying that there are no genuine issues of material fact with
respect to its Motions.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 266 Filed 06/O2/2006 Page 3 of 4
do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts .... In
the language of the Rule, the non-moving party must
come forward with “specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial." . . . Where the record g
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the non—moving party, there is “no
genuine issue for trial."
Idy at 586-87. Accordingly, a mere scintilla of evidence in
support of the non—moving party is insufficient for a court to
deny summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 252 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue for trial exists only
if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational person to
conclude that the position of the person with the burden of proof
on the disputed issue is correct. Horowitz v. Federal Kemper _
Life Assurance Co., 57 F.3d 300, 302 n.l (3d Cir. 1995) i
(citations omitted). i
II. DISCUSSION
After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to
Power Integrations, as the non—moving party, the Court concludes
that genuine issues of material fact exist requiring this matter
to proceed to trial. Specifically, Fairchild’s Motions raise
questions of material fact concerning the structure and operation
of the accused devices and the understandings of those skilled in
the art on such issues as the nature of the accused devices and
the teachings of the prior art. In addition, Fairchild’s motions
implicate such issues as materiality and intent for its
allegations of inequitable conduct, date of conception, diligence
3

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 266 Filed 06/O2/2006 Page 4 of 4
and reduction to practice for its other invalidity arguments.
Given the factual nature of these inquiries, the Court finds that
a full trial on the merits is required.
III. CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non— i
Infringement of Claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876 (D.I.
204) is DENIED.
2. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment of Invalidity
of Claim 1 of the ‘876 Patent (D.I. 207) is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non- 3
infringement Of U.S. Patent N0. 4,811,075 (D.I. 210) is DENIED. §
4. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Of Q
Unenforceability And Invalidity Of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,107,851 and
6,229,366 (D.I. 213) is DENIED.
5. Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity
Of Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 4,811,075 (D.I. 215) is
DENIED.
6. Defendants‘ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Of Non-
infringement (Foreign Sales) (D.I. 218) is DENIED.
June 2, 2006 % ,,
Date UN ED TATE DISTRICT JUDG
4