Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor, No. 16-2691 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) — Nonprecedential Opinion (Doc. 20180920)

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR INTERNATIONAL,

INC., FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION, FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN)

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellants

2016-2691, 2017-1875

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:09-cv-05235-MMC, Judge Maxine M. Chesney.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN,

HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

22 POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. v. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

O R D E R

Appellee Power Integrations, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellants Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation. The petition was first referred to the panel that heard the appeal. The panel granted the petition in part and denied it in part (see accompanying order). Thereafter, the petition was referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. (2) The mandate of this court will issue on October 29,

2018.

FOR THE COURT

September 20, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Cite this opinion

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor, No. 16-2691 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018).

Record ID

CAFC-16-2691-20180920

Permalink

https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2691-20180920

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.