Chief Judge Stark denies motion for reargument, adopts Special Master orders regarding motions to strike expert reports

In Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D. Del. Apr. 24, 2015), Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark considered Plaintiffs’ motion for reargument as well as their objections to various decisions of the appointed Special Master.

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reargument on its recent decision to grant summary judgment to Defendant relating to priority on Defendant’s patent.  Plaintiffs argued that the Court’s finding that there was proof of reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice after conception was based on a mistake of apprehension not supported by the law or facts.  The Court found no clear error in its decision.  Id. at 1-3.

The Court also overruled Plaintiffs’ objections to the orders of Special Master Terrell.  First, the Special Master granted Defendant’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ expert report.  The Court observed that the Special Master’s analysis was not deficient and his conclusions were consistent with the Court’s prior orders allowing Plaintiffs to submit revised expert reports with certain parameters.  Id. at 5-7 & n.2.  Second, the Special Master had only granted Plaintiffs’ own motion to strike as to portions of Defendant’s expert reports that were responsive to stricken portions of Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions.  Id. at 7.  In adopting the Special Master’s order, the Court agreed with the Special Master’s conclusions regarding the scope of Defendant’s expert’s opinions.  Id. at 8.

%d bloggers like this: