Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc, C.A. No. 12-540 – LPS, April 15, 2015 (unsealed April 20, 2015).

Stark, C. J.  Defendant’s motion to sever and stay claims regarding one patent is denied.  Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is deferred for further briefing.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that plaintiff is precluded from re-litigating literal infringement of one patent-in-suit by LinkSwitch-II products and remains pending in other respects.  Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding priority date is denied.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and mooted in part.  Argument on these motions took place on March 3, 2015.

Trial in this case is scheduled to begin May 26, 2015.  All asserted claims from the ‘972 patent have been finally rejected by the Examiner and plaintiff is appealing.  Defendant moves to sever and stay those claims.  The court declines to stay because it would only minimally simplify the case for trial and prejudice the plaintiff.  The weightiest factor is that discovery is completed and trial is about to begin.  Plaintiff seeks to preclude defendant from re-litigating the validity of the ‘972 patent (claim preclusion), and also to preclude defendant from litigating both the validity of that patent as well as the direct infringement component to prove induced infringement (issue preclusion).  Plaintiff has met its burden to show that the accused products in this case are essentially the same as in a prior case, and that the scope of the asserted claims is the also the same.  The court directs the parties to advise how the resolution of these issues impacts plaintiff’s motion as to claim and/or issue preclusion with respect to infringement and/or validity.  Defendant’s motion regarding barring re-litigation of literal infringement of the ‘972 patent is granted, the jury in prior litigation having found no literal infringement.  The parties dispute whether the ‘915 patent is prior art to the ‘457 patent and have both moved for summary judgment.  The ‘915 patent is prior art unless the ‘457 patent is entitled to an earlier priority date.  The court concludes that defendant has met its burden regarding conception and reduction to practice with respect to the earlier date.