Subpoena quashed where former employees had already provided testimony

Posted on January 24, 2007 by MorrisJames Delaware

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., No. 04-1371-JJF, Aug. 24, 2006.

Farnan, J.  The court quashed a third party subpoena of Intersil as cumulative to and duplicative of previous subpoenas issued to Intersil’s former employees.  Non cumulative topics were held to be irrelevant to this lawsuit.

Deposition of former Intersil employees took place in January 2006.  In April 2006 Fairchild and Intersil sued Power Integrations in Texas, alleging infringement of one of the patents in the Delaware lawsuit.  Sole inventor of patents had already been deposed, and it was clear he would be the one designated to testify on issues relating to invention.  Rule 30(a)(2)(B) requires leave of court to depose a witness a second time.  Deposition topics are in some cases identical to those of initial subpoenas.  To the extent they are not duplicative, they seek information irrelevant to this lawsuit.  Also, fact discovery is closed and insufficient reason has been offered to reopen it.

Tags:
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/admin/trackback/21708
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.