Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 411 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
FISH 8L RICHARDSON P.C.
Suite 1100
919 N. Market Street
12.0. Box 1114
Wilmington, Delaware
Frederick P. Fish L9899‘UY4
1855-1930 Telephone
WK. Richardson 302 652-5070
$$9-msi
Facsimile
302 652-0607
October 6, 2006 Web We
wwvv.fr.com
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
® Re: Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International
ATLANTA USDC-D. Del. - C.A. N0. 04-1371 JJF
AUSTIN
¤¤sT¤~ Dear Judge Farnan:
DALLAS
DELAWARE Power Integrations moves pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
NEW YORK Procedure, for judgment as a matter of law that Fairchild literally infringes Claim 1 of
the ‘851 patent. The Court must grant judgment as a matter of law if "there is no
SAN DIEGO legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that
SLLLCON VALLEY issue." Here, it is not a question of sufficiency. Fairchild failed to put forth @
Wm sims evidence to refute Power lntegrations’ showing that Fairchild’s accused products
wAsrrrNe·rON, DC literally infringe claim 1 of the ’85l Patent. Thus, no reasonable jury could conclude
that Fairchild does not literally infringe Claim 1 of the ’851 patent.
Literal infringement exists when each and every element of the asserted claim is
present in the accused device. Acco Brands, [rrc. v. Micro Security Devices, Inc., 346
F.3d 1075, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Power Integrations established
the presence of every claim 1 element via at least the testimony of Power
lntegrations’ infringement expert, Mr. Blauschild, and the schematics for Fairchild’s
accused parts [PX241].
Mr. Blauschild opined that Fairchild’s accused products literally infringe claim 1 of
the ’851 Patent. [483:13-22 and 487:4-6] Mr. Blauschild also stepped through his
analysis using Fairchild’s schematics and showed the presence of every claim 1
element in the accused products. [483:23 to 487:6; PX24l]
Fairchild failed to put forth any evidence — exhibit, testimony, or otherwise — refuting
Power lntegrations’ showing that the accused parts literally infringe claim 1 of the
’851 Patent. Fairchild’s non-infringement expert, Dr. Horowitz, admitted on cross-
examination that he provided g non—infringement opinion concerning claim 1 of the
’851 Patent. Specifically, Dr. Horowitz admitted that he had E opinion on whether
the elements of claim 1 of the ’851 Patent are literally present in the accused parts:

Case 1:04—cv—01371-JJF Document 411 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 2
Frsn Sc R1cHARDsoN 1>.c.
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
October 6, 2006
Page 2
20 You have not provided any opinion
21 here today that these elements of Claim 1 are
22 not literally present in the Fairchild accused
23 devices; correct?
24 A. l did not provide any such
l opinion.
[Trial Transcript at 1102:20 to 1103:1]
Instead, Dr. Horowitz stated that his only opinion was that the accused parts practice
what is taught in the Martin prior art reference. This is not a defense to literal
infringement, as a matter of black letter law. Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM
Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (warning that "practicing the
prior art" is not a viable defense against a claim of literal infringement and quoting
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Spectramed, Inc., 49 F.3d 1575, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
("Literal infringement exists if each of the limitations of the asserted claim(s) read on,
that is, are found in, the accused device. Questions of obviousness [or anticipation] in
light of the prior art go to validity of the claims, not to whether an accused device
infringes.")).
Thus, no reasonable jury could conclude that Fairchild does not literally infringe
claim 1 of the ’85l patent. Power lntegrations respectliilly requests that the Court
grant its motion for judgment as a matter of law and hold that Fairchild’s FSD200
series of products literally infringe claim 1 of the ’851 Patent.
Respectfully,
/s/ William J Marsden, Jr.
William J. Marsden, Jr.
WJ M/kxk
cc: Steven J. Balick, Esq. (By Email)
Bas de Blank, Esq. (By Email)