Free Verdict Sheet - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 552

Filed 09/20/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. C.A. No. 04-1371 JJF

POWER INTEGRATIONS' REVISED [PROPOSED] SPECIAL VERDICT AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY - VALIDITY

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 552

Filed 09/20/2007

Page 2 of 6

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '851 PATENT 1. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the '851 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 Integrations.) Claim 1: Claim 4: YES YES NO NO

2. If you answered "YES" to question 1, indicate claim by claim below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining any claim of the '851 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '366 PATENT 3. 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 finding for Power Integrations.) Claim 9: YES NO

4. If you answered " YES" to question 3, indicate below any reference you have determined anticipates claim 9 of the ' 366 Patent. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 2

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 552

Filed 09/20/2007

Page 3 of 6

5. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims 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 Integrations.) Claim 9: Claim 14: YES YES NO NO

6. If you answered " YES" to question 5, indicate claim by claim below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining any claim of the ' 366 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '876 PATENT 7. 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 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.) YES NO

8. If you answered " YES" to question 7, indicate below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining Claim 1 of the ' 876 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

3

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 552

Filed 09/20/2007

Page 4 of 6

VALIDITY OF POWER INTEGRATIONS' '075 PATENT 9. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 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 Integrations.) YES NO

10. If you answered " YES" to question 9, indicate below any reference you have determined anticipates claim 1 of the ' 075 Patent. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

11. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the ' 075 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 Integrations.) Claim 1: Claim 5: YES YES NO NO

(FORM CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE)

4

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 552

Filed 09/20/2007

Page 5 of 6

12. If you answered " YES" to question 11, indicate claim by claim below which reference(s) you have relied upon in determining any claim of the ' 075 Patent was obvious. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

You must each sign this Verdict Form: (foreperson)

Dated: __________________

5

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF

Document 552

Filed 09/20/2007

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 20, 2007, I electronically filed with the Clerk of Court POWER INTEGRATIONS' REVISED [PROPOSED] SPECIAL VERDICT AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY - VALIDITY using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing(s) to the following Delaware counsel. In addition, the filing will also be sent via hand delivery: Steven J. Balick, Esq. John G. Day, Esq. Ashby & Geddes 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor P. O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899

I hereby certify that on September 20, 2007, I have served the document(s) to the following non-registered participants via hand delivery: G. Hopkins Guy, III Gabriel M. Ramsey Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP c/o Sheraton Suites, Legal A 422 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

William J. Marsden, Jr. ([email protected])