Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation v Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS, May 4, 2015
Stark, C.J. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment relating to infringement of two claims of the ‘259 patent, non-infringement of defendant’s ‘366 patent, and invalidity of defendant’s ‘359 patent are denied. Plaintiff’s motions are granted as to non-obviousness of one claim in the ‘123 patent, no § 112 invalidity of the ‘259 patent, and non-infringement of defendant’s ‘587 patent. Defendant’s motion is granted as to no infringement under the DOE, invalidity of certain claims of the ‘259 patent, and no literal infringement of the ‘123 patent.
The court previously decided certain summary judgment motions and this opinion addresses the remainder. Factual disputes preclude summary judgment of infringement of the ‘259 patent. The motion regarding the ‘123 patent is granted as unopposed. The court grants defendant’s motion of invalidity of the ‘259 patent due to anticipation, and grants plaintiff’s motion of no invalidity of the ‘259 patent due to lack of enablement, lack of written description, or indefiniteness. Issues of fact remain regarding non-infringement of the ‘366 patent. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘587 patent is granted. As for the claims of the ‘359 patent, no expert opinion or evidence other than the patent is provided, and summary judgment is not warranted. Plaintiff is barred from asserting DOE infringement due to untimely contentions. Summary judgment of no literal infringement of the ‘123 patent is granted because plaintiff’s timely contentions do not identify an “output terminal” as required by the court’s claim construction.
