Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 248

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.

) ) ) )
)

C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) )

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FAIRCHILD'S MOTION TO POSTPONE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Ten business days before the pre-trial order is due, Fairchild has yet to receive any portion of Power Integrations' materials. While it is Power Integrations' burden to prepare the joint order, to meet this burden Power Integrations must provide Fairchild with its exhibit lists, deposition designations, and identify the facts and issues it intends to prove. This is necessary so that Fairchild can (i) identify the issues and evidence necessary to rebut Power Integrations' case and (ii) prepare its objections and responses to Power Integrations' "evidence". Rather than meet the May 8 deadline, Power Integrations proposes "that the parties finalize the details and objections for exhibit lists and deposition designations at a later date...." DI 246, p. 2. This is unworkable. The parties must complete their pretrial order before the pretrial conference so that there will be no surprises, and so the Court will have the information it needs to allocate the time each side will need to present its case for trial. See, e.g., Exhibit A, transcript from first pretrial conference in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Canon, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 03-241-JJF (D. Del. September 16, 2004) (Court unable to allocate time for trial because the parties failed to provide meaningful lists of issues, exhibits, or witnesses, etc.). Fairchild respectfully suggests that the best course is to extend the date of the conference. 1

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 248

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

Should the Court decline to extend the date for the pretrial conference, Fairchild respectfully requests that the Court order that the parties complete the pretrial order by May 8, 2006. Power Integrations' "proposal" of an open ended extension should be rejected. ASHBY & GEDDES /s/ John G. Day _____________________________ Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114) John G. Day (I.D. #2403). Lauren E. Maguire (I.D. #4261) 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 302-654-1888 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Of Counsel: G. Hopkins Guy, III Vickie L. Feeman Bas de Blank Brian H. VanderZanden Orrick, Herrington & Stucliffe LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 614-7400 Dated: April 24, 2006
168844.1

2

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 248

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 24th day of April, 2006, the attached REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FAIRCHILD'S MOTION TO POSTPONE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE was served upon the below-named counsel of record at the address and in the manner indicated: William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire Fish & Richardson, P.C. 919 N. Market Street
Suite 1100

HAND DELIVERY

P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899 Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110-2804 Michael Kane, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C.
60 South Sixth Street

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

3300 Dain Rauscher Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55402 Howard G. Pollack, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Andre G. Bouchard, Esquire Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

HAND DELIVERY

/s/ John G. Day _________________________________ John G. Day