CogniPower LLC v. Fantasia Trading LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Delaware
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-02293
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

COGNIPOWER LLC, ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 19-2293-JLH-SRF ) FANTASIA TRADING LLC, d/b/a ) ANKERDIRECT and ANKER ) INNOVATIONS LIMITED, ) ) Defendants, ) ) POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., ) ) Intervenor/Counterclaim Plaintiff. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington, this 8th day of July, 2025; WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Fallon issued an Order on December 13, 2024 (D.I. 257) addressing numerous discovery disputes; WHEREAS, on December 27, 2024, Plaintiff CogniPower LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed Objections to the December 13, 2024 Order (D.I. 265), asserting a “[c]onditional objection to the denial of CogniPower’s motion to strike any reference to the OmniSwitch file for which data was withheld” (“Part I Objection”) and further asserting that the Magistrate Judge “misapprehend[ed]” Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery from Power Integrations, Inc. (“PI”) pertaining to products using PI’s InnoSwitch or LytSwitch-6 chips (beyond the accused Anker products) (“Part II Objection”); WHEREAS, on December 30, 2024, Plaintiff notified the Court that its “conditional objection in Part I of D.I. 265 is moot and the Court need not address it” (D.I. 266 at 2 n.1); WHEREAS, on January 10, 2025, Anker and PI responded (D.I. 267); WHEREAS, Judge Fallon’s December 13, 2024 Order may only be set aside if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); WHEREAS, a magistrate judge’s order “is contrary to law only when the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied the applicable law,” Evans v. John Crane, Inc., No. 15-681, 2019 WL 5457101, at *6 (D. Del. Oct. 24, 2019) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); WHEREAS, under the “clearly erroneous” standard, the Court will only set aside findings of a magistrate judge when it is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” Green v. Fornario, 486 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); WHEREAS, Plaintiff has come nowhere close to demonstrating that the Magistrate Judge’s Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law when it concluded that “[t]he five lines of argument CogniPower presented in support of its request for relief are not sufficient to establish the relevance and proportionality” of its request for discovery pertaining to additional products using PI chips, nor is the undersigned persuaded that the requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objections (D.I. 265) to Judge Fallon’s December 13, 2024 Order are OVERRULED.

UNITED ES DISTRICT JUDGE