FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-31 15.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 17,2004, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. $1337, based on a complaint filed by Linear Technology Corporation of Milpitas, California alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain voltage regulator circuits, components thereof and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-6,31,34-35,41,44-48, and 51-57 0fU.S.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-3 1 15.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 17,2004, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. $1337, based on a complaint filed by Linear Technology Corporation of Milpitas, California alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain voltage regulator circuits, components thereof and products containing same by reason of infringement ofclaims 1-6,31,34-35,41,44-48, and 51-57 0fU.S.

On February 16,2005, the complainant, Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”) filed an opposition to the motion for protective order regarding the Hsing deposition.

Due to the nature of their employment with MPS, it is reasonable to expect that Messrs. Beville ‘The pa,-;; - , ive resolved the issiics rcg \?ding the Cantelmo deposition.

Although there may be some duplication in the testimony of these witnesses, Linear need not be curtailed to a limited source of information.

Rather, different witnesses may possess different knowledge on similar or related topics.2 In this instance, the taking of these depositions does not appear to be superfluous or intended to harass.

This one-day session will afford each party the opportunity to present relevant background technology information to the Administrative Law Judge.

The tutorial shall be confined only to background science and technology, and should not be viewed as a substitute for the hearing.

Although no cross-examination will occur during the tutorial, the session will be recorded by a court reporter.

The Administrative Law Judge will not rely on the tutorial to make any findings on contested issues in the investigation.

Having given MPS notice of its intention to file the pending motion, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 4 210.25 and 5 210.33, Linear now requests the imposition of evidentiary, monetary and other sanctions for the alleged failure of MPS to make or cooperate in certain discovery subject to orders of the Administrative Law Judge.

On February 16,2005, the Commission Investigative Staff filed a response in opposition to Linear’s motion.

Nevertheless, the depositions of David Meng and Randy Flatness, which were discussed in the filings related to the pending motion, should each be continued by one additional day.

Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Mark A. Flagel, Esq.

~ -: Order No. 7: Shortening Response Time to Complainant’s Motion for Sanctions On February 10,2005, the complainant, Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”), filed a motion for monetary and non-monetary sanctions against respondent Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“Monolithic”).

The motion includes a request for shortened time for responses to the motion.

Good cause having been shown, the time for filing responses to Linear’s motion is shortened to noon on Wednesday, February 16,2005.