Intergraph Files Response to Intel's Appeal

(July 21, 1998)  On Monday Intergraph filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit its brief in response to Intel's brief in support of its appeal of the preliminary injunction issued against it by the U.S. District Court.  Workstation maker Intergraph sued chipmaker Intel last year on a wide range of legal theories, including anticompetitive behavior, patent infringement, and antitrust violations of the Sherman Act.

The Intergraph Corporation's complaints about Intel's business practices have also served as part of the basis for the Federal Trade Commission's administrative antitrust action against Intel Corporation, filed last month.   Intel supplies Intergraph with microprocessors, and other products.

On April 10 Intergraph won a major victory when U.S. District Court Judge Edwin Nelson (Northern District of Alabama) granted Intergraph a preliminary injunction which barred Intel,

"from terminating Intergraph’s rights as a "strategic customer in current and future programs," or from otherwise taking any action adversely affecting Intel’s business relationship with Intergraph or Intergraph’s ability to design, develop, produce, manufacture market or sell products incorporating, or based upon, Intel products or information, ... "

Intergraph argued in its brief that the trial court properly issued the preliminary injunction.  Intergraph described its arguments in a summary of the brief: "Intel had failed to mount any notable challenge to three of the four factors supporting the injunction: (1) the clear irreparable harm to Intergraph, (2) the clear balance of harms and equities in favor of the injunction, and (3) the public interest served by the injunction in upholding the antitrust and intellectual property laws."

"As to the fourth factor - the likelihood of success on the merits of the case - Intergraph says Intel tries to build its appeal almost entirely by challenging just two of the numerous bases of antitrust liability cited by the district court as grounds for the injunction: monopoly leveraging and attempt to monopolize. According to Intergraph's brief, Intel failed to challenge numerous stronger bases of antitrust liability, including (1) illegal maintenance of monopoly, (2) denial of access to essential facilities, (3) unlawful refusals to deal, (4) misuse of monopoly power, and (5) coercive reciprocity."