Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF (D. Del. July...

8/9/2019 Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF (D. Del. July 22, 2010) (Farnan, J.).

1/16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., aDelaware corpora t ion ,P l a i n t i f f ,

v. C.A. No. 04-1371-JJFFAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTORINTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware:corpora t ion , and FAIRCHILDSEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, aDelaware corpora t ion ,

Defendants .

Frank E. Scherkenbach, Esquire of FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. , Boston, Massachuset ts . Howard G. Pol lack , Esqui re and Michael R. Headley, Esqui re o f FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. , Redwood City , Cal i fo rn ia . William J . Marsden, J r . , Esqui re and Kyle Wagner Compton, Esquire of FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. , Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys fo r P l a i n t i f f . G. Hopkins Guy, I I I , Esqui re ; Vickie L. Feeman, Esqui re ; Bas de Blank, Esqui re ; Gabrie l M. Ramsey, Esquire and Brian H. VanderZanden, Esqui re of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Menlo Park, Ca l i fo rn ia . Steven J . Bal ick , Esqui re ; John G. Day, Esqui re and Lauren E. Maguire, Esqui re of ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys fo r Defendants .

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J U l y ~ 2010Wilmington, Delaware


2/16

This pa ten t inf r ingement ac t ion was f i l ed by P l a i n t i f f ,Power In teg ra t ions , Inc . ("Power In teg ra t ions" ) aga ins tDefendants, Fai rch i ld Semiconductor In t e rna t iona l , Inc . andFai rch i ld Semiconductor Corpora t ion ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , " Fa i r c h i ld" ) .The Cour t held two ju ry t r i a l s , one t r i a l on th e i s sue o finfr ingement and one t r i a l , before a separa te ju ry , on the i s sueof i nva l id i t y . In each t r i a l , the ju ry re turned a v e rd i c t infavor of Power In t e g ra t i o n s . 1

After the in f r ingement t r i a l concluded, but be fore theva l id i t y t r i a l , the Federa l C i rc u i t i s sued i t s en banc decis ionin In Re Seagate , 497 F.3d 1360. Fai rch i ld moved fo r a new t r i a lon w i l l fu l in f r ingement in l i g h t of Seagate , and the Courtgranted Fa i rch i l d ' s motion. A new t r i a l was held before theCour t on th e i s sue of w i l l fu l n e s s . This Memorandum Opinioncons t i tu t es the C o u r t ' s f ind ings of f a c t and conc lus ions of lawregarding th e i s sue of w i l l f u l inf r ingement .I . DISCUSSION

A. Appl icable Legal Pr inc ip lesTo e s t a b l i s h wi l l fu l in f r ingement ,a patentee must show by c l e a r and convincing evidencet ha t the i n f r i nge r ac ted desp i t e an ob jec t ive ly high

The background r e levan t to t h i s ac t ion has been s e tfor th fu l ly by the Court in previous decis ions entered in t h i scase . (0.1. 231, 683) . This case enjoys a de ta i l e d and l eng thyh i s to ry as documented on Westlaw.

1


3/16

l ike l ihood t h a t i t s ac t ions c o n s t i t u t e d in f r ingement o fa va l id pa ten t . The s t a t e of mind o f th e accusedi n f r i n g e r i s no t r e levan t to t h i s o b jec t i v e inqu i ry .I f t h i s th resho ld ob jec t ive s tandard i s s a t i s f i e d , th epa ten tee must a l so demonstra te t h a t t h i s o b j e c t i v e l y def ined r i sk (determined by th e record developed in theinfr ingement proceeding) was e i t he r known o r so obvioust h a t it should have been known to th e accusedi n f r i nge r .

In re Seagate Tech. , LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir . 2007)(c i t a t ion omi t t ed ) . An ob jec t ive ly high l i ke l ihood t h a t thei n f r i n g e r ' s ac t i o n s cons t i tu t ed in f r ingement o f a v a l i d pa ten tequates with a showing o f ob jec t ive r eck les snes s . Id . ; a l soMinks v. Pola r i s Indus . , 546 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir . 2008).In making these de te rmina t ions , the Court must examine thet o t a l i t y of th e c i rcumstances . Broadcom Corp. v. Oualcomm Inc . ,543 F.3d 683, 700 (Fed. Cir . 2008).

In order ing the r e t r i a l on w i l l f u l inf r ingement , th e Courtobserved a t ens ion in th e case law concerning whether th e Courtshould look to p r e l i t i g a t i o n conduct only and/or p o s t - l i t i g a t i o nconduct in de te rmining whether infr ingement was w i l l f u l . TheCour t summarized t h i s tens ion as fo l lows:

In Seagate , the Federa l C i rc u i t exp la ined , in th econ tex t of d i scuss ing the idea o f s h i e ld in g trialcounse l from the waiver t h a t stems from th e advice o fcounse l defense , t ha t "wi l l fu lness wi l l depend on ani n f r i n g e r ' s p r e l i t i g a t i o n conduct . " 497 F.3d a t 1374.However, fo l lowing Seagate , the Federa l C i rc u i texp la ined i n d i c t a in Black & Decker , Inc . v. RobertBosch Tool Corp. , 260 Fed. Appx. 284 (Fed. Cir . 2008) ,t h a t "both l eg i t ima te defenses to in f r ingement cla imsand c r ed ib l e i n v a l i d i t y arguments demonstra te th e l ackof an ob jec t ive ly high l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a p a r ty tookac t ions c ons t i t u t i ng in f r ingement o f a va l id pa te n t . "

2


4/16

Id . a t 291 (providing guidance to th e d i s t r i c t cour t onthe app l i ca t ion of Seagate to w i l l f u l inf r ingementclaims, even though such claims were rendered moot onappeal by Federa l C i r c u i t ' s decis ion to vaca teinfr ingement f inding) .Power In teg ra t ions , Inc . v. Fai rch i ld Semiconductor, I n t ' l , Inc . ,585 F. Supp. 2d 583, 588 (D. Del. 2008). The Court reconci ledthe comments in Black & Decker with the p r e l i t i g a t i o n emphasis inSeagate by concluding t h a t the Court would "focus on thepre l i t i ga t i on conduct of the accused i n f r i nge r i n the f i r s tins tance bu t must also taken in to account whether the accusedi n f r inger maintained p laus ib le or cred ib le defenses to[] infr ingement and i nva l id i ty . " Id .

Examining th e t o t a l i t y of the c i rcumstances in t h i s case , asse t for th in the record of these proceed ings , th e Court concludestha t Power In teg ra t ions has es tab l i shed by c l ea r and convincingevidence t ha t Fai rch i ld wi l l fu l l y i n f r inged Power In t e g ra t i ons 'pa ten t s . In reach ing t h i s conclus ion , the Court f inds t ha t th eevidence es tab l i shes t ha t Fai rch i ld ac ted desp i t e an ob jec t ive lyhigh l ike l ihood t ha t i t s ac t ions cons t i tu ted in f r ingement of aval id pa ten t , and t h a t Fai rch i ld knew or should have known oft h i s ob jec t ive r i sk . As a genera l mat te r , pa ten t s are presumed

val id . Power In teg ra t ions has es tab l i shed , and Fai rch i ld has notdisputed t ha t , p r i o r to and through th e f i l ing of t h i s ac t ion ,Fa i rch i ld was aware of th e p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t . 0 .1 . 612, Exh. A(Fa i rch i ld ' s June 30, 2005 Supplemental Response to Power

3


5/16

In t egra t ions ' In t e r roga tory No. 13) ; Tr. (Jang) 591:11-15; Tr .9 /8 /05 a t 66:4-18; Tr . (Lim) 9/13/2005) a t 53:9-24; T r. (Choi)87:8-25; PX-306; PX-257. The evidence fu r t he r demonst ra tes noobjec t ive reason , pre l i t i ga t i on , on th e p a r t of Fa i rch i ld tobel ieve the asse r t ed pa ten t s were i nva l i d . In f ac t , the evidenceshows t ha t Fa i r c h i l d recognized the importance of PowerIn t egra t ions ' pa t en t s t o the indus t ry , desc r ib ing them as ~ k e y pa ten t s" with "epoch making" technology, PX-304 a t FCS1010471,and fur the r , t h a t Fa i rch i ld knew or should have known t h a t i t sproducts would i n f r i nge . Spe c i f i c a l l y , the evidence demonstra test ha t Fa i rch i ld e i t h e r (1) engaged in a meticulous s tudy ofproducts made with t he pa t en t ed fea tures through de t a i l ed r ever seengineer ing e f f o r t s and then b la t an t l y copied the productswithout any regard to the high l i ke l ihood of inf r ingement t h a twould a r i s e from such b la t an t copying, or (2) in the case ofo ther pa ten t s , complete ly d i s regarded the subs tance of a t l e a s tsome of the p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t , making little or no e f f o r t to ensuret ha t t h e i r produc ts d id no t i n f r i nge . Given these rcumstances ,th e Court concludes t h a t both of t hese types o f ac t ionsdemonstra te an objec t ive ly high r i sk of inf r ingement .

With r e spec t to th e '075 pa ten t , the evidence shows t ha tFa i rch i ld knew, through i t s reverse engineer ing e f f o r t s , t ha tPower In t egra t ions competing products prac t i ced the grounded PTOPinvent ion cla imed in the '075 pa ten t . Tr. (Jeon) 545:21-546:4 ,

4


6/16

551:3-9, 552:13-554:20, 563:13-23, 557:13-16: Tr . (Jang) 574:1-4;PX-289, PX-291, 292, 293. Fa i rch i l d ' s Process Development Groupdraf ted a t echn ica l repor t dated March 3, 1999 proposing th reeopt ions fo r Fai rch i ld to take with r espec t to t h i s pa ten t : (1)continue to develop two-chip package produc t s , (2) seek a l i censeto the '075 pa ten t , or (3 ) change the design of th e Fai rch i ldproducts to a f loa t ing PTOP l ayer as the only way to avoid theproposed LDMOS s t ruc tu r e which was known to be i den t i ca l to whatwas claimed in th e '075 pa ten t . PX-296, Tr. (Jeon) 568:2-23.Although Fai rch i ld at tempted a f loa t ing PTOP, it determined t ha tit did not func t ion as well as the grounded PTOP. PX-275 a tFCS189652. Faced with t h i s fa i led at tempt and desp i t e i t sknowledge of the '075 pa ten t and i t s importance to the indus t ry ,Fa i rch i ld chose the opt ion t ha t presented the most ob jec t ive lyhigh r i sk of infr ingement , namely to cont inue the development ofi t s produc t by copying, through reverse engineer ing , the methodsand f ea tu res cla imed in the pa ten t . PX-296 a t FCS1330833; Tr.(Shields) 386:9-401:6; Tr. (Jeon) 548:22-549:3.

Fai rchi ld sugges t s t ha t it concluded t ha t the '075 pa ten td id not cover DMOS s t ruc tu r e s , and thus , Fai rch i ld had a va l idand ob jec t ive bas i s fo r be l iev ing i t s products would not i n f r ingesince they were made by a DMOS process . Tr. (Jeon) 566:11-21.In suppor t of t h i s pos i t ion , Fa i rch i ld of fe r s th e tes t imony ofMr. Jeon, th e most knowledgeable person a t Fai rch i ld concerning

5


7/16

the development of the SOG3 process and Fa i rch i l d ' s review of the'075 patent . However, the evidence does not suppor t Mr. Jeon ' stes t imony. Mr. Jeon could not remember if he o r h is col leaguesmemorialized t h e i r a l leged OMOS conc lus ions in any form, andcould not remember if he informed anyone in Fa i rch i l d ' smanagement concerning th e a l leged b e l i e f of Fai rch i ld engineerst ha t th e pa ten t was not being in f r inged . Tr. (Jeon) 565:2-567:1,PX-296. Indeed, contrary to Mr. Jeon ' s tes t imony, th econtemporaneous documentary evidence shows t ha t Fai rch i ld knewi t s proposed LOMOS s t ruc tu r e was " i den t i ca l to what i s claimed"in the '075 p a t en t and t ha t th e "LOMOS of PI presen t s a pa ten ti s sue ." PX-232 a t FCS354643. Notably, Fai rch i ld re fe r red toPI ' s patented PTOP s t ruc tu r e as "LOMOS" which was the same termFai rch i ld engineers used in descr ib ing t h e i r own produc t s . PX-293 a t FCS 1685529-31; FCS1685533-34i FCS-168550i PX-274 a tFCS19435. Further , no documentary evidence ex i s t s sugges t ingt ha t Fai rchi ld bel ieved i t s proposed LOMOS would not i n f r inge the'075 patent . 2 Fai rch i ld sought no opin ions of counse l oninf r ingement or va l i d i t y o f the '075 pa ten t p r e l i t i g a t i o n andmemorialized no t echn ica l memoranda sugges t ing non-infr ingementpr io r to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Tr. (Jeon) 565:2-567:1, 562:24-563:12,

2 In fac t , the contrary i s t rue because Fa i rch i l d ' si n t e rna l memoranda sugges t t ha t the only way to avoidinfr ingement was by f loa t ing th e PTOP, and Fai rch i ld repeatedlyre fe r red to th e patented PTOP s t ruc tu r e as "LOMOS", the same termFai rch i ld engineers appl ied to t h e i r own products .

6


8/16

573:6-11. While Seagate does not impose an af f i rmat ive duty toobta in the opinion of counse l , the Court cons iders the absence ofsuch ob jec t ive opin ions in t h i s case to weigh heav i ly in favor ofdemonstra t ing an ob jec t ive ly high l ike l ihood of inf r ingement ,par t i cu lar ly where, as here , Fai rch i ld was engaged in th e wholesa le copying of Power In t e g ra t i ons ' patented t echnology .

As for the p o s t - l i t i g a t i o n opinions obta ined by Fai rch i ldwith regard to th e '075 pa ten t , the Court concludes t ha t theseopin ions are i n su f f i c i en t to overcome the overwhelming evidenceof w i l l fu l in f r ingement presen ted by Power In t e g ra t i ons . Whilethe Court cons iders these opin ions in making i t s wi l l fu lnessdeterminat ion , th e Court f inds them to be of marginal value bothbecause of t h e i r p o s t - l i t i g a t i o n t iming, Seagate , 497 F.3d a t1374, and because the content of each opinion i s de f i c i e n t torender it object ive and competent advice of counse l . Jurgens v.CBK, Ltd . , 80 F.3d 1566, 1572 (Fed. Cir . 1996). At l ea s t one ofthe th ree opin ions offe red by Fai rch i ld i s unre l i a b l e , because itwas p la in ly con t ra ry to th e fac t s regarding the s t ruc t u re ofFa i r c h i ld ' s devices . DX-136; DX-137 a t WOO 1517-1518; LiquidDynamics Corp. v. Vaughn Co., Inc . , 449 F.3d 1209, 1226 (Fed.Cir . 2006) (a f f i rming f inding of wi l l fu lness where patentee"presented f laws in [an] opin ion ' s f a c t u a l bas i s " ) . The secondopinion, r e s t s on a claim cons t ruc t ion con t ra ry to the Court ' sclaim cons t ruc t ion . DX-136; DX, 137; DX-480 a t FCS1693019

7


9/16

1693020; see Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 WL 799493, *5 (N.D.I l l . Mar. 25, 2009) (" reasonable defenses are l imi t ed to thosecons i s ten t with [ the c o u r t ' s Markman] ru l i ngs " ) . As fo r theth i rd opinion of counsel , th e Court notes t h a t it was presentedfour months before t r i a l and was con t ra ry to th e d i sc losu re ofthe '075 p a t en t and Fa i rch i l d ' s be l i e f regarding i t s infr ingementas evidenced by the i n t e rna l Fai rch i ld memoranda discussedi n f r a . 3 DX-480.

Simi la r ly , with r espec t to th e '876, '851 and '366 pa ten t s ,the evidence demonstra tes t h a t Fai rch i ld was aware of th e claimedfrequency j i t t e r i ng funct ion , as wel l as the s o f t s t a r t fea tu res .PX-257; PX-306i Tr. 9/13/05 (Lim) a t 53:9-24 , Tr. (Choi) 87:8-25.The importance o f th e frequency jitter fea tu re was known in theindus t ry and t o Fa i rch i ld . PX-163 a t FCS698340-41i Tr.(Balakrishnan) a t 281:10-15, 317:1-14; Tr. (Renouard) 647:2-21.Customers in th e indus t ry sought the Power In t e g ra t i ons 'technology in the produc ts t ha t they purchased. As a December2003 e-mai l exchange within Fai rch i ld noted, GE used PowerIn teg ra t ions ' chips which prac t i ced the cla imed f requency j i t t e r ,and GE inqui red as to whether Fai rch i ld was going to be

"developing s i m i l a r devices ." PX-163 a t FCS698340-41. Fai rch i ldnoted t ha t o th e r supp l i e rs could not win GE's bus iness because

3 To the ex ten t t ha t these opinions r a i se what Fai rch i ldargues are cred ib le and l eg i t ima te defenses to inf r ingement , theCourt wi l l address Fa i rch i l d ' s arguments more fu l l y supra .8


10/16

t h e i r products lacked t h i s fea tu re . Id .Without any p r e l i t i g a t i o n , i n t e rna l documented reason to

doubt th e va l i d i t y of much of t h i s patented t echnology andwithout seeking th e pre l i t i ga t ion opin ion of counse l fo r any ofthe asse r t ed pa ten t s , except the '876 pa ten t , Tr. (Choi) a t88:11-23, 89:8-10 , Fai rch i ld proceeded again with its " i ndus t r i a ls ta lk ing n measures - - reviewing Power In teg ra t ions data shee t s ,reverse engineer ing i t s produc ts , and emulat ing i t s market ingco l l a t e ra l , not to avoid infr ingement and des ign around thepaten ted f ea tu res which would have been l eg i t ima te compet i t ivebehavior , but r a the r to copy them in v io l a t i on of PowerIn teg ra t ions ' p a t en t r i gh t s . Fai rch i ld incorporated PowerIn teg ra t ions ' technology in to i t s produc ts , even going so fa r asto use the same frequency var ia t ion s igna l to dr ive thei n t eg ra ted frequency jitter and the i n t eg ra ted s o f t s t a r tfea tures s e t fo r th in claim 4 of the '851 p a t e n t . As PowerIn teg ra t ions ' exper t , Mr. Blauschi ld , noted a t t r i a l , t h i s was"too big a coincidence to say t ha t they come up with t h a t a l l ofa sudden by themse lves . n D.I . 558 (Blauschi ld) a t 1044:221046:1.

I f Fai rch i ld was not busy studying and copying PowerIn teg ra t ions ' technology as discussed above, it was essen t i a l l yignoring it, which in th e Cour t ' s view, also r i s e s to the l e v e lof ob jec t ive ly r eck les s behav ior . For example, the evidence

9


11/16

demonstra tes t h a t Fa i rch i l d ' s Mr. Jang paid little a t t e n t ion toPower In t e g ra t i o n s ' '876 pa ten t reviewing only the f igures andabs t rac t of the p a t en t and not the fu l l t ex t , which would haverevea led t ha t he was implementing a jitter c o n s i s t e n t with th evol tage-based jitter cla imed in the pa ten t . T r. (Jang) 592:7-8,19-593:19, 594:12-20, 591:16-592:8; '876 p a t en t a t co l . 2:42-55and cla ims 17-19.

Fai rch i ld contends t ha t it obta ined a p r e l i t i g a t i o n opinionconcerning the va l i d i t y and po te n t i a l in f r ingement of the '876pa ten t and t h a t t h i s demonstra tes t ha t Fai rch i ld was notob jec t ive ly r eck les s with regard to i t s in f r ingement of the '876pa ten t . However, th e evidence presented by Fa i r c h i l d regard ingi t s re l i ance on t h i s opin ion i s lukewarm a t be s t . Fa i rch i l d ' sMr. Conrad t e s t i f i ed regarding conversa t ions he had with Mr.Schot t , Fa i rch i l d ' s d i r e c to r of I n t e l l e c t u a l Proper ty , t ha tFai rch i ld was not i n f r ing ing ; however, Mr. Conrad a l so t e s t i f i e dt h a t Fa i rch i ld did not re ly on the March 2004 p r e - l i t i g a t i o nopinion l e t t e r in dec id ing to manufacture and s e l l th e accusedproduct s . Tr. (Conrad) a t 1450:10-1451:18; Tr. (Woo) a t 1431:141432:10. While th e Court does not discount t h i s evidence as

going to an ob jec t ive bas i s by Fai rch i ld fo r concluding it wasnot i n f r ing ing th e '876 p a t en t , in l i g h t of the s t rong evidenceof copying in t h i s case , the Court cannot conclude t ha t t h i sevidence negates th e evidence o f wi l l fu l in f r ingement adduced by

10


12/16

Power In teg ra t ions , which the Court f inds to be c l e a r andconvincing.

Simi la r ly , the Court i s not persuaded t ha t the p o s t l i t i g a t i o n opin ion l e t t e r s obtained by Fai rch i ld ev i sce ra te th eevidence on w i l l f u l infr ingement presen ted by Power In teg ra t ions .While the Court cons ide rs those opinions as evidence aga ins t af inding of w i l l f u l in f r ingement , th e Court af fo rds them littleweight, aga in because of t h e i r t iming , Seaga te , 497 F.3d a t 1374,and t he i r con ten t . As Power In teg ra t ions po in t s out , theopinions regarding the '876 and '851 pa ten t s do not addressinf r ingement of claim 1 of the '876 p a t en t and claim 1 of the'851 pa ten t . Tr. (Conrad) 912:4-13, 913:3-915:15; Tr. (Morr i l l )a t 1417:4-17; DX-159; DX-537; DX-482; DX-160i DX-481i DX-536. Tothe extent these opinions r a i s e an a n t i c ipa t ion argument , theCourt notes t ha t Fai rch i ld u l t ima te ly d id not pursue anan t i c ipa t ion defense a t t r i a l . DX-482 a t FCS1693038; 0 .1 . 557,Tr. (Horowitz) a t 828:22-836:8; 0 . 1 . 55 5 (Verdic t Form); 0 . 1 .612, Exh. G (VanderZanden e-mai l dated 9/17 /07) . Though notd i spos i t ive , the Court f inds Fa i rch i l d ' s dec i s ion to forgo anan t i c ipa t ion defense and r e s t i t s case on obviousness , to be af ac to r t ha t undermines the l eg i t imacy of t h i s opinion of counselas evidence negat ing an ob jec t ive ly high r i sk o f in f r ingement ,pa r t i c u l a r ly in l i g h t of Fa i rch i l d ' s egreg ious p r e l i t i g a t i o nconduct. Simi la r ly , th e opin ion l e t t e r s regarding the '366

11


13/16

pa ten t e i the r f a i l to address asse r t ed c la ims of the '366 pa ten t ,such as cla ims 9 and 14 of the '366 pa ten t , and/or f a i l toconstrue key phrases in the claim terms such as " s o f t s t a r tc i r c u i t . " DX-535; DX-538; DX-483; Tr. (Conrad) 916:11-918:2

Much of the evidence and argument ra i sed by Fai rch i ld torebu t Power In t e g ra t i ons ' claim fo r wi l l fu l in f r ingement r e s t s onFa i r c h i ld ' s p o s t - l i t i g a t i o n conduct , inc luding the opin ion l e t t e revidence discussed above and th e asse r t ion t ha t Fai rch i ldmainta ined cred ib le arguments of non- in f r ingement , i nc lud ingp laus ib le and reasonab le cla im cons t ruc t ion d i spu tes , andcred ib le arguments concerning the va l i d i t y of the p a t e n t s - i n s u i t . Fai rch i ld contends t h a t these va l id defenses demonstra tet h a t Fa i rch i ld was ob jec t ive ly reasonab le and could not havew i l l fu l l y in f r inged the p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t . Fai rch i ld c i t e s , fo rexample, to th e Federa l Circu i t ' s decis ion in CohesiveTechnologies , Inc. v. Waters Corp. , 543 F.3d 1351, 1374 n.4 (Fed.Cir . 2008), fo r the p rop os i t ion t ha t a s u f f i c i e n t l y closeques t ion regarding claim cons t ruc t ion fo rec loses a f ind ing ofwi l l fu lness . The Federa l C i rc u i t has taken a s i m i l a r approach inDePuy Spine, Inc . v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc . , 567 F.3d 1314

(Fed. Cir . 2009) ("[TJhe record developed in the in f r ingementproceeding in t h i s case , viewed ob jec t ive ly , ind i spu tab ly showst h a t the ques t ion of equivalence was a c lose one, par t i cu l a r l yin so fa r as equ iva lence ' r equi res an i n t ense ly fa c t u a l

12


14/16

inqui ry . ' ' ' } . However, the Court understands th e p o s t - s u i t ,reasonableness of a p a r t i e s ' defenses to be only one fac to r amongth e t o t a l i t y of the ci rcumstances to be considered in dete rminingw i l l fu l in f r ingement . In th e Cour t ' s view, a con t ra ry approachto w i l l fu l in f r ingement , would negate the a b i l i t y of a pa ten teeto prove wi l l fu l in f r ingement in any hard fought and ho t lycon tes ted p a t en t l i t i g a t i o n . In t h i s case , the ev idencees tab l i shes t h a t Fai rch i ld engaged in th e b l a t a n t copying o fPower In t e g ra t i on ' s patented f ea tu r e s , knowing of the f ea tu r e s ,and t h e i r importance to th e indus t ry withou t adequatei n v es t i g a t i o n i n to non-infr ingement and va l i d i t y of the pa ten t sp r i o r to th e i n i t i a t i o n o f t h i s ac t ion . The Court concludes t ha tt h i s evidence weighs more heavi ly than th e p o s t - s u i t s t r a t e g ydeveloped by counse l to avoid a claim of w i l l f u l in f r ingement ,a f t e r such in f r ingement has a l ready occur red . The Court a l sonotes the s t a tement in DePuy to th e e f f e c t tha t argumentsconcerning "copying" and "des ign ing around" are only r e levan t tothe i n f r i n g e r ' s mental s t a t e under Seaga te ' s second prong. Inth e Cour t ' s view, however, the evidence of copying i s so s t rongin t h i s case and th e evidence re la ted t o co u n s e l ' s opinion

l e t t e r s and measures taken by F a i r ch i l d t o avo id in f r ingement soweak, t ha t it i s hard to unders tand how one cou ld ob jec t ive lybel ieve such ac t i o n s would not c ons t i t u t e a high l ike l ihood ofinfr ingement . In reaching t h i s conclus ion , th e Cour t unders tands

13


15/16

. ~ - . -_

t ha t some may cons ide r t h i s ana lys i s to be an over lap between theob jec t ive and sub jec t ive components of the Seagate t e s t , b ut inth i s case , th e Court does not be l ieve a c l e a r separa t ion i sposs ib le and views th e evidence as going to th e es tabl i shment ofboth prongs .

In sum, th e Court i s persuaded t h a t Power In teg ra t ions hasdemonstrated by c l e a r and convincing evidence t h a t Fai rch i ldacted desp i te an ob jec t ive ly high l ike l ihood t h a t its ac t i o n sconst i tu ted in f r ingement o f a va l id pa ten t . Power In teg ra t ionshas fu r ther shown t h a t Fai rch i ld knew o r should have known o ft h i s ob jec t ive ly def ined r i s k . Accordingly , th e Court concludest ha t Power In teg ra t ions has es tab l i shed t h a t Fai rch i ld wi l l fu l l yinf r inged th e p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t .II . CONCLUSION

For th e reasons discussed, th e Court concludes t ha tFai rch i ld wi l l fu l l y in f r inged Power In t e g ra t i ons ' pa ten t s .

An appropr ia te Order w i l l be en te red .

14


16/16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., aDelaware corporat ion ,P la in t i f f ,

v. C.A. No. 04-1371-JJFFAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTORINTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware:corporat ion , and FAIRCHILDSEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, aDelaware corporat ion ,

Defendants .

o R D E R

At Wilmington, t h i s ~ d a y of July 2010, fo r the reasonsse t for th in the Memorandum Opinion i s sued t h i s da te ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED tha t :1. Pla in t i has es tab l i shed by c l ea r and convincing

evidence t ha t Defendants wi l l fu l l y i n f r inged the pa t en t s - i n - su i t ;2. P la in t i f f sha l l f i l e any app l i ca t ion fo r enhanced

damages and/or a t torneys ' fees no l a t e r than August 4, 2010.Defendant sha l l f i l e s Response no l a t e r than August 18, 2010.

Date post:	29-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ycstblog
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF (D. Del. July...

Documents