Free Jury Verdict - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

, Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 555 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE A g P A W
' t~
Zig J I'` I I
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.A. N0. 04-1371 JJF
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and FAIRCHILD
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
SPECIAL VERDICT
AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE J URY - VALIDITY
I

_ Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 555 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 2 of 4
We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:
VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS’ ’075 PATENT
l. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that claim l of the ’075 Patent
is anticipated and therefore invalid? (A "YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild.
A "NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power lntegrations.)
\
YES NO x
2. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims
of the ’O75 Patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention in view of one or more of the asserted prior an
references, and therefore the claim is invalid? (A "YES" answer is a finding for
Fairchild, A "NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.)
Claim l: YES NO {
Claim 5: YES NO
(FORM CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE)
2

' Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 555 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 3 of 4 p
VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS’ ’876 PATENT
3. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention in view of one or more of the asserted prior an references, and Lherefore
the claim is invalid? (A "YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild. A "NO" answer
to this question is a finding for Power lntegrations.)
YES NO X
VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRA'l`IONS’ ’851 PATENT
4. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims
of Lhe ’851 Patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the an
at the time of the invention in view of one or more of the asserted prior art
references, and therefore the claim is invalid? (A "YES" answer is a finding for
Fairchild. A "NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power Integrations.)
Claim l: YES NO Q Q
Claim 4; YES NO 2;
VALIDITY OF POWER lNTEGRA'I`IONS’ ’366 PATENT
5. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that claim 9 of the ’366 Patent
is anticipated and therefore invalid? (A "YES" answer is a finding for Fairchild.
A "NO" answer to this question is a Ending for Power Integrations.)
Claim 9: YES NO
3

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 555 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 4 of 4
6. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims i
of the ’366 Patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention in view of one or more of the asserted prior art
references, and therefore the claim is invalid? (A “YES" answer is a finding for
Fairchild. A "NO" answer to this question is a finding for Power lntegrations.)
t
Claim 9: YES NO
Claim 14: YES NO
You must each sign this Verdict Form: Dated: . az"
`\
4