Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.
904 F.3d 965
| Fed. Cir. | 2018

Background

  • Power Integrations sued Fairchild for infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,212,079 (’079) and 6,538,908 (’908) covering switching-regulator frequency-control and a multi-function power-supply controller. Two jury trials were held: liability (infringement) and a second damages trial.
  • First jury found literal infringement of several claims of the ’079 patent and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of claims of the ’908 patent; district court granted a new damages trial post-VirnetX.
  • Second jury awarded $139.8M based solely on the entire market value rule (EMVR); district court denied Fairchild’s JMOL/new-trial motion.
  • On appeal, Federal Circuit affirmed infringement findings for both patents but held the EMVR was improperly applied and vacated the damages award, remanding for a new damages trial.
  • Key technical disputes: meaning of “fixed switching frequency” in the ’079 claims (whether minor environmental variance or intentional frequency‑hopping defeats “fixed”); and whether prosecution‑history estoppel barred equivalents theory for the ’908 claim that used voltage to represent current.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Power Integrations) Defendant's Argument (Fairchild) Held
Meaning of “fixed switching frequency” in ’079 “Fixed” permits real‑world minor variation; accused products operate at a non‑varying cycles‑per‑second over a range “Fixed” requires absolutely no variance (operating conditions or intentional jitter defeat it); “per‑second” construction invalid Court: construction allowing minor environmental variation is operable; Fairchild waived belated “per‑second” challenge; substantial evidence supports infringement
Frequency‑hopping (jitter) products and “fixed” claim Aggregate cycles/sec can be non‑varying even if microsecond jitter occurs Intentional jitter shows frequency varies and therefore does not meet “fixed” limitation Court: expert testimony that cycles/sec are non‑varying over one‑second intervals supported jury verdict of infringement
Doctrine of equivalents for ’908 (voltage used to implement current limit) Voltage value is equivalent to current value (Ohm’s Law); no prosecution‑history estoppel Prosecution‑history estoppel: patentee distinguished voltage from current during parent prosecution so cannot assert voltage as equivalent Court: prosecution statements in parent patent did not clearly surrender the subject matter of the ’908 claim; equivalents verdict affirmed
Damages — use of entire market value rule (EMVR) Patented frequency‑reduction feature drove consumer demand; EMVR appropriate Product has multiple valuable features (e.g., jittering); patentee failed to apportion and cannot invoke EMVR Court: EMVR improperly applied because accused products had other valuable features and Power Integrations failed to prove the patented feature alone drove demand; damages vacated and remanded

Key Cases Cited

  • VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.) (requires apportionment beyond smallest salable unit where product has significant unpatented features)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (claim‑construction framework; ordinary meaning to person skilled in art)
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (U.S.) (review of factual findings in claim construction)
  • Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.) (avoid inoperable claim constructions)
  • Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (U.S.) (apportionment principle for reasonable royalties)
  • Ericsson, Inc. v. D‑Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir.) (value of what was taken—apportion royalties to patented contribution)
  • LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir.) (EMVR requires high‑degree proof that patented feature drives entire product demand)
  • Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.) (EMVR when patented feature forms basis for demand)
  • Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir.) (smallest salable unit caution)
  • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (U.S.) (prosecution‑history estoppel limits doctrine of equivalents)
  • O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (when pretrial claim construction was pressed, party need not re‑raise at trial)
  • Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., 628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.) (cannot reserve new claim‑construction arguments for post‑trial stage)
  • Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 742 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir.) (waiver of claim‑construction arguments not raised at trial)
Read the full case