Power Integrations, Inc v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.
Docket: No. 2009-1169
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; May 5, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation filed a motion for a stay of a permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on December 12, 2008, following a ruling that Fairchild infringed three patents held by Power Integrations, Inc. The district court temporarily stayed the injunction on December 22, 2008, but denied a stay pending appeal. Fairchild then appealed the denial of the stay but not the permanent injunction itself. The court examined its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) and § 1292(c)(1), noting that prior case law, specifically Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Labs, Inc., established that a denial of a stay of an injunction is not considered a final decision and thus not subject to appellate review. Fairchild argued its case was distinct since it was not appealing the injunction itself, but the court clarified that jurisdiction is not dependent on whether the appellant previously appealed the injunction. The court reiterated that it cannot extend its jurisdiction where none exists, as established in Christianson v. Colt Operating Industries Corp. It also rejected Fairchild's argument that the December 22 order was appealable as a modification of the injunction, reaffirming that such orders do not fall under the appealable categories outlined in § 1292(c)(1). Consequently, the court dismissed Fairchild's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ordered that each party bear its own costs, and deemed Fairchild’s motion for a stay moot, as the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on stays related to further district court proceedings or reexamination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.