UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC
`(d/b/a ON SEMICONDUCTOR),
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809
`Case IPR2016-00995
`Case IPR2016-01589
`Case IPR2016-01597
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER POWER INTEGRATIONS’
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`EXHIBIT LIST IPR2016-00809
`
`PI2006
`
`PI2007
`
`PI2008
`
`PI2009
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`PI2001
`Intentionally omitted.
`PI2002
`Intentionally omitted.
`PI2003
`Intentionally omitted.
`PI2004
`Intentionally omitted.
`PI2005
`Completed verdict form, Dkt. No. 551, in Power Integrations, Inc.
`v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-
`cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., dated Mar. 4, 2014.
`Completed damages verdict form, Dkt. No. 918, in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., dated Dec. 17, 2015.
`Trial testimony of Dr. Gu-Yeon Wei offered by Defendants, in
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., on Feb. 20,
`2014.
`Continued trial testimony of Dr. Gu-Yeon Wei offered by
`Defendants, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.,
`on Feb. 24, 2014.
`Trial testimony of Dr. Arthur Kelley offered by Patent Owner, in
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., on Feb. 24,
`2014
`Deposition of Balu Balakrishnan, In the Matter of: Certain power
`supply controllers and products containing the same, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-541, United States International Trade Commission,
`from Oct. 25, 2005.
`Xunweu Zhou et al., “Improved Light Load Efficiency for
`Synchronous Rectifier Buck Converter,” in 1 Fourteenth Annual
`Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, IEEE, at
`295 (2000) (“Zhou”).
`U.S. Patent No. 4,459,651 to Fenter (“Fenter”).
`U.S. Patent No. 4,772,995 to Gautherin et al. (“Gautherin”).
`Fairchild’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, new
`trial, and/or remittitur pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`50 and 59, Dkt. No. 596, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`
`PI2010
`
`PI2011
`
`PI2012
`PI2013
`PI2014
`
`i
`
`

`

`PI2015
`
`PI2016
`
`PI2017
`
`PI2018
`
`PI2019
`
`PI2020
`
`PI2021
`
`PI2022
`
`PI2023
`
`PI2024
`
`PI2025
`
`PI2026
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Jun. 27, 2014.
`Power Integrations’ opposition to Fairchild’s renewed motion for
`judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and/or remittitur, Dkt. No.
`601, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.,
`filed July 18, 2014.
`Order re: Post-trial motions, Dkt. No. 632, in Power Integrations,
`Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No.
`09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., entered Sep. 9, 2014.
`Excerpts from Mohan et al., Power Electronics: Converters,
`Applications, and Design, 2d ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995,
`pp. 161-172, 301-353, 571-595.
`Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among ON Semiconductor
`Corporation, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., and Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc., dated as of Nov. 18, 2015, and
`filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on same date.
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2009.
`Joint Case Management Statement, Dkt. No. 38, in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2010.
`Excerpts from Gray et al.,” Analysis and Design of Analog
`Integrated Circuits, 3d. Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993, pp. 59-
`66.
`Press release by Fairchild, “Fairchild Announces Successful
`Completion of Tender Offer for System General,” dated Feb. 8,
`2007.
`Tender Offer Statement, filed with the United States Securities and
`Exchange Commission, dated Feb. 19, 2016.
`Tender Offer Statement, filed with the United States Securities and
`Exchange Commission, dated June 24, 2016.
`Press Release by ON Semiconductor, “ON Semiconductor to
`Acquire Fairchild Semiconductor for $2.4B in Cash,” dated Nov.
`18, 2015.
`Confidentiality Agreement, between ON Semiconductor Corp. and
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Sep. 14, 2015, filed
`with the Securities and Exchange Commission as Exhibit (d)(2) to a
`Tender Offer Statement filed Dec. 4, 2016.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PI2027
`
`PI2028
`
`PI2029
`
`PI2030
`
`PI2031
`PI2032
`PI2033
`
`PI2034
`
`PI2035
`
`PI2036
`
`PI2037
`
`PI2038
`
`PI2039
`
`PI2040
`
`PI2041
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Transcript of Teleconference between the Board and Parties on July
`13, 2016
`Declaration of Howard G. Pollack in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission’s
`Declaration of Frank E. Scherkenbach in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Deposition of Dr. Vijay Madisetti conducted on Nov. 16, 2016 in
`IPR2016-00809.
`Declaration of William Bohannon.
`Declaration of David Michael Matthews.
`E-mail correspondence between counsel in IPR2016-00809
`regarding Petitioner’s disclosure of merger closing before trial
`institution.
`Patent Owner e-mail request to Board for permission to file motion
`for discovery related to privity issue sent Nov. 2, 2016.
`One Watt Initiative: A Global Effort to Reduce Leaking Electricity,
`Meier & LeBot (1999).
`President Bush Executive Order 13221. [Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial exhibit PX-1819]
`Meier, “Reducing Leaking Electricity to a Trickle,” Home Energy
`Magazine Online May/June 1999. [Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial exhibit PX-1895]
`Reducing Standby Power Consumption, Tso-Min Chen (System
`General). [Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.,
`admitted trial exhibit PX-1833]
`“W the Vampire Slayer,” Richard Miniter, Wall Street Journal,
`Aug. 17, 2001. [Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial exhibit PX-1900]
`Datasheet for TOP242-249 TOPSwitch®-GX Family: Extended
`Power, Design Flexible, EcoSmart®, Integrated Off-line Switcher,
`Nov. 2005. [Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.,
`admitted trial exhibit PX-0121]
`Power Integrations press release for TOPSwitch®-GX. [Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PI2042
`
`PI2043
`
`PI2044
`
`PI2045
`
`PI2046
`
`PI2047
`PI2048
`PI2049
`PI2050
`PI2051
`
`PI2052
`
`PI2053
`
`PI2054
`
`PI2055
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial exhibit
`PX-1669]
`Power Integrations press release on analogZone award for DAK-32.
`[Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial
`exhibit PX-0278]
`Datasheet for TOP232-234 TOPSwitch®-FX Family Power, July
`2001 [Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.,
`admitted trial exhibit PX-0123]
`SG6841 Datasheet. [Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial exhibit PX-0118]
`List of all Fairchild products found to infringe the ’079 patent.
`[Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International,
`Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial
`exhibit PX-1894]
`Application Note AN4148: Audible Noise Reduction Techniques
`for FPS Applications, Fairchild Semiconductor, © 2005. [Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., admitted trial exhibit
`PX-1593]
`William Bohannon, curriculum vitae.
`Patent Owner’s Submitted Translation of Oda.
`Energizer No. E91 Datasheet.
`Everready Lithium L91 Application Manual, Nov. 6, 2001.
`Cambridge Dictionary, “function.” Retrieved November 18, 2016
`from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/function
`“Function.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web.
`17 Nov. 2016. (https://www.merriam-webster.
`com/dictionary/function)
`function. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved November
`18, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
`http://www.dictionary.com/browse/function
`Trial testimony given on Dec. 8, 2015 (Volume 2) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Trial testimony given on Dec. 9, 2015 (Volume 3) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PI2056
`
`PI2057
`
`PI2058
`
`PI2059
`
`PI2060
`
`PI2061
`PI2062
`
`PI2063
`PI2064
`
`PI2065
`PI2066
`PI2067
`PI2068
`
`PI2069
`
`PI2070
`
`PI2071
`
`PI2072
`PI2073
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Trial testimony given on Dec. 10, 2015 (Volume 4) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Trial testimony given on Dec. 14, 2015 (Volume 6) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Trial testimony given on Dec. 15, 2015 (Volume 7) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Trial testimony given on Feb. 11, 2014 (Volume 3) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Trial testimony given on Feb. 10, 2014 (Volume 2) in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.
`Declaration of Warren Smith regarding English translation of Oda.
`Declaration of Neil A. Warren regarding the authenticity of
`litigation related documents.
`Resume of William Bohannon (Served but not filed)
`CONFIDENTIAL Transcript of the 05-11-2017 Deposition of Yuji
`Kakizaki
`Transcript of the 05-03-2017 Deposition of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`Reserved
`Email from Neil A. Warren to Roger Fulghum dated May 16, 2017
`Trial testimony given on September 19, 2007 in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 04-1371-JJF, Del.
`Trial testimony given on September 20, 2007 in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 04-1371-JJF, Del.
`Video Deposition of David Michael Matthews in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC (N.D. Cal.) on April 22, 2015
`REDACTED Transcript of the 05-11-2017 Deposition of Yuji
`Kakizaki
`Reserved
`Transcript of June 16, 2017, Teleconference between Board and
`Parties
`
`v
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Petition for Rehearing filed June 29, 2019 in Power Integrations,
`Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607, (Fed. Cir. June
`13, 2019)
`Order Denying Petition entered August 28, 2019 in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607,
`(Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019)
`
`
`
`PI2074
`
`PI2075
`
`‘
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`PI2001-
`PI2004
`PI2005
`
`PI2006
`
`PI2007-
`PI2013
`PI2014
`
`PI2015
`
`PI2016
`
`PI2017
`
`PI2018
`
`PI2019
`
`PI2020
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`EXHIBIT LIST IPR2016-00995
`
`
`Description
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`Completed verdict form, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`MMC, N.D. Cal., Mar. 4, 2014.
`Completed damages verdict form, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2015.
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`Fairchild’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, new
`trial, and/or remittitur pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`50 and 59, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal.,
`Jun. 27, 2014.
`Power Integrations’ opposition to Fairchild’s renewed motion for
`judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and/or remittitur, in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., July 18, 2014.
`Order re: Post-trial motions, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`MMC, N.D. Cal., Sep. 9, 2014.
`Excerpts from Mohan et al., Power Electronics: Converters,
`Applications, and Design, 2d ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995,
`pp. 161-172, 301-353, 571-595.
`Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among ON Semiconductor
`Corporation, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., and Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc., dated as of Nov. 18, 2015, and
`filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on same date.
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2009.
`Joint Case Management Statement, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2010.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PI2021
`PI2022
`
`PI2023
`
`PI2024
`
`PI2025
`
`PI2026
`
`PI2027
`
`PI2028
`
`PI2029
`
`PI2030
`
`PI2031
`
`PI2032
`
`PI2033
`
`PI2034
`
`PI2035
`
`PI2036
`PI2037
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`Press release by Fairchild, “Fairchild Announces Successful
`Completion of Tender Offer for System General,” Feb. 8, 2007.
`Tender Offer Statement, filed with the United States Securities and
`Exchange Commission, dated Feb. 19, 2016.
`Tender Offer Statement, filed with the United States Securities and
`Exchange Commission, dated June 24, 2016.
`Press Release by ON Semiconductor, “ON Semiconductor to
`Acquire Fairchild Semiconductor for $2.4B in Cash,” Nov. 18,
`2015.
`Confidentiality Agreement, between ON Semiconductor Corp. and
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Sep. 14, 2015, filed
`with the Securities and Exchange Commission as Exhibit (d)(2) to a
`Tender Offer Statement filed Dec. 4, 2016.
`Transcript of Teleconference between the Board and Parties on July
`13, 2016, in IPR2016-00809.
`File history for the original prosecution of U.S. Patent Application
`Serial No. 10/167,557, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908.
`File history for a first ex parte reexamination proceeding on U.S.
`Patent No. 6,538,908, Control No. 90/007,790.
`Exhibits B-E (claim charts) submitted with ex parte reexamination
`request, Control No. 90/007,790.
`File history for a second ex parte reexamination proceeding on U.S.
`Patent No. 6,538,908, Control No. 90/008,363.
`Exhibits B-G (claim charts) submitted with ex parte reexamination
`request, Control No. 90/008,363.
`Unitrode Corporation, Application Note U-150, “Applying the
`UCC3570 voltage-mode PWM controller to both off-line and
`DC/DC converter designs, bearing a copyright date of 1999 by
`Texas Instruments Inc.
`Balakrishnan, “Three terminal off-line switching regulator reduces
`cost and parts count,” in Power Conversion, September 1994
`Proceedings, pp. 267-279.
`Linear Technology, “LT1070/LT1071: 5A and 2.5A High
`Efficiency Switching Regulators,” bearing a copyright date of 1989
`by Linear Technology Corporation.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,245,526 to Balakrishnan.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 to Nelson.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`PI2038
`
`PI2039
`
`PI2040
`
`PI2041
`
`PI2042
`
`PI2043
`
`PI2044
`
`PI2045-
`PI2073
`PI2074
`
`PI2075
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Linear Technology, “LT1074/LT1076: Step-Down Switching
`Regulator,” bearing a copyright date of 1994 by Linear Technology
`Corporation.
`STMicroelectronics, “VIPer100/SP, VIPer100A/SPA: SMPS
`Primary I.C.,” with a copyright date of 1998.
`Cherry Semiconductor Corp., “CS4124/6: High Performance,
`Integrated Current Mode PWM Controllers,” bearing a 1999
`copyright date by Cherry Semiconductor Corp. and “Rev. 3/12/99.”
`Notice re Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of the
`Investigation, Aug. 11, 2006, in U.S. International Trade
`Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-541.
`Disposition in System General Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n
`and Power Integrations, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit, Case No. 2007-1082, Nov. 19, 2007.
`Patent Owner e-mail request to Board in IPR2016-00809, for
`permission to file motion for discovery related to privity issue sent
`Nov. 2, 2016.
`Declaration of Neil A. Warren regarding the authenticity of
`litigation related documents.
`Reserved
`
`Petition for Rehearing filed June 29, 2019 in Power Integrations,
`Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607, (Fed. Cir. June
`13, 2019)
`Order Denying Petition entered August 28, 2019 in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607,
`(Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`EXHIBIT LIST IPR2016-01589
`
`Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among ON Semiconductor
`Corporation, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., and Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc., dated as of November 18, 2015
`Press Release from onsemi.com "On Semiconductor to Acquire
`Fairchild Semiconductor for $2.4 Billion in Cash", dated November
`18, 2015
`Article from iotevolutionworld.com "ON Semiconductor Buys
`Fairchild Semiconductor", dated September 20, 2016
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 04-cv-
`1371 (D. Del.) (“Fairchild I”), dated October 20, 2004
`Stipulated Order regarding Complaint for Patent Infringement,
`Fairchild I, dated November 9, 2004
`Petitioner’s Revised Mandatory Notice dated October 25, 2016
`Confidentiality Agreement between ON Semiconductor Corporation
`and Fairchild Semiconductor International, dated September 14,
`2015
`Jury Verdict Form, Fairchild I, D.I. 415, dated October 20, 2004
`Jury Verdict Form, Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-00309 (D.
`Del.) (“Fairchild II”), D.I. 577, dated April 27, 2012
`Order for Entry of Final Judgment, Fairchild II, D.I. 819, dated
`January 13, 2015
`Memorandum Opinion, Fairchild II, D.I. 731, dated March 29, 2013
`Excerpt from The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms, 6th Edition, 1996, pgs. 246-247, 834, and 863
`(“1996 IEEE Dictionary”)
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Opinion in the
`matter Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l,
`Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1329 and -1388, on December 12, 2016
`Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response
`Statutory Disclaimer of claims 11, 13, and 32 of U.S. Patent
`6,249,876
`U.S. Patent 5,834,984 (Tsugita)
`Declaration of Dr. Arthur Kelley in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`x
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Horowitz and Hill: The Art of Electronics (2nd ed.)
`Switching Power Supply Design by Abraham I. Pressman (2nd ed.)
`File History of U.S. Ser. No. 09/192,959, filed Nov. 16, 1998
`Application for Patent, Ser. No. 09/192,959, filed Nov. 16, 1998
`File history of Reexamination No. 90/008,326
`Declaration of David Michael Matthews
`Special Verdict Form, Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., C.A. No. 04-1371 (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2006)
`(“Fairchild I”)
`Verdict Form, Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor
`Int’l, Inc., C.A. No. 08-309 (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2012) (“Fairchild II”)
`Excerpts from Fairchild I Trial Transcript (Sept. 19, 2007)
`Excerpts from Power Integrations, Inc.’s SEC Form 10-K for year
`ending 2005
`Fairchild Semiconductor FSD210H Data Sheet (2004)
`Fairchild I Memorandum Opinion (July 23, 2010)
`Fairchild Semiconductor FSD210 Data Sheet (2003)
`Power Integrations TNY256 Data Sheet (2001)
`Power Integrations TNY256 Schematics
`Stipulated Protective Order
`Declaration of Howard G. Pollack in Support of Admission Pro Hac
`Vice
`Recording of oral argument at the Federal Circuit appeal in the ‘876
`patent reexamination
`Deposition Transcript of David Michael Matthews, August 3, 2017
`Reserved
`
`Petition for Rehearing filed June 29, 2019 in Power Integrations,
`Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607, (Fed. Cir. June
`13, 2019)
`Order Denying Petition entered August 28, 2019 in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607,
`(Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019)
`
`
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`2027
`
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`2033
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`2037-
`2073
`2074
`
`2075
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`PI2001-
`PI2004
`
`PI2005
`
`PI2006
`
`PI2007-
`PI2013
`
`PI2014
`
`PI2015
`
`PI2016
`
`PI2017
`
`PI2018
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`EXHIBIT LIST IPR2016-01597
`
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`Completed verdict form, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`MMC, N.D. Cal., Mar. 4, 2014.
`
`Completed damages verdict form, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2015.
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`Fairchild’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, new
`trial, and/or remittitur pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure 50 and 59, in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-
`MMC, N.D. Cal., Jun. 27, 2014.
`
`Power Integrations’ opposition to Fairchild’s renewed motion for
`judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and/or remittitur, in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et
`al., Case No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., July 18, 2014.
`
`Order re: Post-trial motions, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., Sep. 9, 2014.
`
`Excerpts from Mohan et al., Power Electronics: Converters,
`Applications, and Design, 2d ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995,
`pp. 161-172, 301-353, 571-595.
`
`Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among ON
`Semiconductor Corporation, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., and
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., dated as of Nov. 18,
`2015, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
`same date.
`
`xii
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`PI2019
`
`PI2020
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 4, 2009.
`
`Joint Case Management Statement, in Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-cv-
`05235-MMC, N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2010.
`
`PI2021
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`PI2022
`
`PI2023
`
`PI2024
`
`PI2025
`
`PI2026
`
`PI2027
`
`PI2028
`
`PI2029
`
`PI2030
`
`PI2031
`
`Press release by Fairchild, “Fairchild Announces Successful
`Completion of Tender Offer for System General,” Feb. 8, 2007.
`
`Tender Offer Statement, filed with the United States Securities
`and Exchange Commission, dated Feb. 19, 2016.
`
`Tender Offer Statement, filed with the United States Securities
`and Exchange Commission, dated June 24, 2016.
`
`Press Release by ON Semiconductor, “ON Semiconductor to
`Acquire Fairchild Semiconductor for $2.4B in Cash,” Nov. 18,
`2015.
`
`Confidentiality Agreement, between ON Semiconductor Corp.
`and Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Sep. 14, 2015,
`filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as Exhibit
`(d)(2) to a Tender Offer Statement filed Dec. 4, 2016.
`
`Transcript of Teleconference between the Board and Parties on
`July 13, 2016, in IPR2016-00809.
`
`File history for the original prosecution of U.S. Patent
`Application Serial No. 10/167,557, which issued as U.S. Patent
`No. 6,538,908.
`
`File history for a first ex parte reexamination proceeding on U.S.
`Patent No. 6,538,908, Control No. 90/007,790.
`
`Exhibits B-E (claim charts) submitted with ex parte
`reexamination request, Control No. 90/007,790.
`
`File history for a second ex parte reexamination proceeding on
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,908, Control No. 90/008,363.
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`PI2032
`
`PI2033
`
`PI2034
`
`PI2035
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Exhibits B-G (claim charts) submitted with ex parte
`reexamination request, Control No. 90/008,363.
`
`Unitrode Corporation, Application Note U-150, “Applying the
`UCC3570 voltage-mode PWM controller to both off-line and
`DC/DC converter designs, bearing a copyright date of 1999 by
`Texas Instruments Inc.
`
`Balakrishnan, “Three terminal off-line switching regulator
`reduces cost and parts count,” in Power Conversion, September
`1994 Proceedings, pp. 267-279.
`
`Linear Technology, “LT1070/LT1071: 5A and 2.5A High
`Efficiency Switching Regulators,” bearing a copyright date of
`1989 by Linear Technology Corporation.
`
`PI2036
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,245,526 to Balakrishnan.
`
`PI2037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 to Nelson.
`
`PI2038
`
`PI2039
`
`PI2040
`
`PI2041
`
`PI2042
`
`Linear Technology, “LT1074/LT1076: Step-Down Switching
`Regulator,” bearing a copyright date of 1994 by Linear
`Technology Corporation.
`
`STMicroelectronics, “VIPer100/SP, VIPer100A/SPA: SMPS
`Primary I.C.,” with a copyright date of 1998.
`
`Cherry Semiconductor Corp., “CS4124/6: High Performance,
`Integrated Current Mode PWM Controllers,” bearing a 1999
`copyright date by Cherry Semiconductor Corp. and “Rev.
`3/12/99.”
`
`Notice re Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of
`the Investigation, Aug. 11, 2006, in U.S. International Trade
`Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-541.
`
`Disposition in System General Corp. v. International Trade
`Comm’n and Power Integrations, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Federal Circuit, Case No. 2007-1082, Nov. 19, 2007.
`
`PI2043
`
`USP 5313381 (Balakrishnan)
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`PI2044
`
`Declaration of Neil A. Warren regarding the authenticity of
`litigation related documents.
`
`PI2045-2065 Reserved
`
`PI2066
`
`Disclaimer of Claims 30-34
`
`PI2067
`
`PI2067-
`PI2073
`PI2074
`
`PI2075
`
`
`
`Declaration of Howard G. Pollack in Support of Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`
`Reserved
`
`Petition for Rehearing filed June 29, 2019 in Power Integrations,
`Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607, (Fed. Cir.
`June 13, 2019)
`Order Denying Petition entered August 28, 2019 in Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components, No. 2018-1607,
`(Fed. Cir. June 13, 2019)
`
`
`xv
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Stay Motion is Precluded by the Mandate ............................. 1
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner’s Stay Motion is Inconsistent with the Board’s SOP ................ 2
`
`III. A Stay Would Unduly Prejudice Patent Owner ......................................... 5
`
`IV. The Board Lacks Jurisdiction to Issue a Stay ............................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`The Board Must Follow Federal Circuit Precedent Unless or Until
`Reversed by the Supreme Court .................................................................. 7
`
`VI. The Board Lacks Statutory Authority to Issue a Stay ............................... 9
`
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`Petitioner’s motion to stay asks the Board to exceed its authority, violate its
`
`SOP, and ignore the Federal Circuit’s clear mandate. A stay would also unfairly
`
`prejudice PI. Petitioner’s motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Stay Motion is Precluded by the Mandate
`
`The mandates in the present cases are very specific and narrow: “For the
`
`foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s final written decision and remand for the
`
`Board to dismiss IPR2016-00809.” (Opinion in IPR2016-00809 at 22 (emphasis
`
`added); see also Opinions in IPR2016-00995, -01589 and -01597 (same).) This
`
`language does not permit the Board to take any other action.
`
`If the plain language of the mandates were not enough, ON even advanced
`
`the same argument to the Federal Circuit that it does here: that the Supreme Court
`
`in Click-to-Call might change the law. (Ex. 2074 – Petition.) The Federal Circuit
`
`considered this argument and denied ON’s petitions for rehearing. (Ex. 2075 –
`
`Order Denying Petition.) Thereafter, ON did not seek to stay the mandates, which
`
`issued. The Board has denied stays under similar circumstances. For example, in
`
`Google, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, Case CBM2014–00006 (May 31, 2017), the Board
`
`denied a stay based upon speculation that the Supreme Court might change the law
`
`after the Federal Circuit denied rehearing. The Board should do the same here.
`
`1
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner’s Stay Motion is Inconsistent with the Board’s SOP
`
` The Board’s SOP 9 states “proceedings on remand generally will not be
`
`stayed once the Federal Circuit has issued its mandate, even when a party has
`
`petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.” SOP 9 at 16 (emphasis
`
`added); accord, Board Trial Guide (July 2019 update at 48). The presumption is
`
`thus against stays when a party requests certiorari. The only recognized exception
`
`is when “the Supreme Court’s judgment would impact the Board’s decision on
`
`remand.” SOP 9 at 17. Here, the Federal Circuit has not authorized the Board to
`
`make any decision on remand, so Click-to-Call cannot impact the Board’s analysis.
`
`The present case is like the SAP case cited by the SOP (which denied a stay),
`
`and unlike the Shaw case cited by the SOP (which granted a stay). Shaw was
`
`stayed because the Board found that the Supreme Court decision might affect the
`
`issue before it: the scope of a particular prior art reference. Shaw, Case IPR2013-
`
`00132 (Oct. 14, 2016) at 2. By contrast, SAS was not stayed because the Board
`
`found that the issue before the Supreme Court (partial institution) would not affect
`
`the issue before the Board on remand (whether a claim was unpatentable given the
`
`Fed Cir’s construction of a particular claim term). SAS, Case IPR2013-00226
`
`(Dec. 15, 2016) at 2-3.
`
`In other cases, the Board has consistently denied stays based on speculation
`
`that the Supreme Court might change the law. One notable example occurred
`
`2
`
`

`

`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
`
`when the Supreme Court was deciding whether IPRs were constitutional in Oil
`
`States. In response, the Board denied all requested stays. E.g., Apotex Inc. v.
`
`Novartis AG, Case IPR2017–00854 (August 30, 2017) (“the outcome of the
`
`Supreme Court’s decision is too speculative to overcome our mandate to ‘secure
`
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.’”); accord, Husky
`
`Injection Molding Systems Ltd. v. Plastics Engineering & Technical Systems, Inc.,
`
`Cases IPR2016–00431, IPR2016–00432, and IPR2016–00433 (June 14, 2017).
`
`The same thing happened after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Wi-Fi One. E.g.,
`
`Google, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, Case CBM2014–00006 (May 31, 2017).
`
`Here, there is no issue before the Board requiring a decision, so the Supreme
`
`Court’s decision in Click-to-Call cannot affect the Board’s analysis. Petitioner’s
`
`argument that the Federal Circuit might recall its mandates, allowing the Board to
`
`make other decisions in the future, is pure speculation. If Petitioner wished to
`
`recall the mandates, it should have filed a motion with the Federal Circuit.
`
`In addition, if the Board complies with the mandates and dismisses the IPRs
`
`at issue without delay, there is no risk of wasted work. The present cases will be
`
`final regardless of what happens in Click-to-Call. Petitioner cites no authority for
`
`its assertion that these IPRs might be “reinstated,” and there is none. This is the
`
`same as any other case which is decided before a change in the law.