Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv05235 - Document 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 03/10/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017)

Download PDF

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al 1 2 3 Frank E. Scherkenbach (SBN 142549) scherkenbach@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-2804 Telephone: (617) 542-5070 4 5 6 7 8 9 Howard G. Pollack (SBN 162897) pollack@fr.com Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834) headley@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 839-5070 Attorneys for Plaintiff POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. 10 Doc. 1038 BLAIR M. JACOBS (admitted pro hac vice) blairjacobs@paulhastings.com CHRISTINA A. ONDRICK (admitted pro hac vice) christinaondrick@paulhastings.com PATRICK J. STAFFORD (admitted pro hac vice) patrickstafford@paulhastings.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP 875 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 551-1700 YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY (SBN: 175421) yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP 1117 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 320-1800 Attorneys for Defendants FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, and FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN) CORPORATION 11 12 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 16 POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Case No. C 09-5235-MMC 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT v. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, and FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN) CORPORATION, Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. C 09-5235-MMC [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to the JURY VERDICTS of March 4, 2014 (Dkt. No. 551) and December 17, 2 2015 (Dkt. No. 918) and the ORDERS of the Court (including Dkt. Nos. 349, 350, 632, 678, 922, 3 986, 1009, 1020, and 1031 and any and all other orders of the Court that hereby merge into this 4 judgment), the Court’s FINAL JUDGMENT is as follows: 5 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of 6 Defendants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, 7 and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively, “Fairchild”) and against Plaintiff Power 8 Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) with respect to literal infringement of claims 26 and 27 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908; 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 11 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to direct infringement under the 12 doctrine of equivalents and inducement of claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908; 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 14 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to the willful infringement of 15 claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908; 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 17 in favor of Fairchild and against Power Integrations with respect to enhancement of damages for 18 infringement of claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908; 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 20 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to validity of claims 26 and 27 21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908; 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 23 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to enforceability of U.S. Patent 24 No. 6,538,908; 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 26 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to literal infringement and 27 inducement of claims 31, 34, 38, and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079; 28 CASE NO. C 09-5235-MMC [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 2 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to the willful infringement of 3 claims 31, 34, 38, and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079; 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 5 in favor of Fairchild and against Power Integrations with respect to enhancement of damages for 6 infringement of claims 31, 34, 38 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079; 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 8 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to validity of claims 31, 34, 38, 9 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079; 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 11 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild, awarding reasonable royalty damages to 12 Power Integrations in the amount of $139,800,000.00, plus an award of pre-judgment interest in 13 the amount of $6,680,598.00, for a total damages award of $146,480,598.00; 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 15 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to literal infringement of claim 6 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,747,977; 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 18 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to direct infringement under the 19 doctrine of equivalents and indirect infringement of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,747,977; 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 21 in favor of Fairchild and against Power Integrations with respect to validity of claim 6 of U.S. 22 Patent No. 5,747,977; 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 24 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to infringement of claims 1, 7, 8, 25 10, 14, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,179,700; and 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered 27 in favor of Power Integrations and against Fairchild with respect to whether a violation of 28 Fairchild’s Seventh Amendment rights occurred. CASE NO. C 09-5235-MMC -2- [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 Dated: March 9, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 2 By: /s/Blair M. Jacobs Blair M. Jacobs Christina A. Ondrick Patrick J. Stafford PAUL HASTINGS LLP 875 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 3 4 5 6 Yar R. Chaikovsky PAUL HASTINGS LLP 1117 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 7 8 9 Attorneys for Defendants FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, and FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN) CORPORATION 10 11 12 13 14 Dated: March 9, 2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Michael R. Headley 15 Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834) headley@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 839-5070 16 17 18 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. 20 21 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under 22 penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel 23 for Defendants. 24 Dated: March 9, 2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 25 By: /s/ Michael R. Headley 26 Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834) 27 Attorneys for Plaintiff POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. 28 CASE NO. C 09-5235-MMC -3- [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 March 10, Dated: _________ 2017 By: ____________________ Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. C 09-5235-MMC -4- [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.