Administrative Hearing in Intel Antitrust Case Set for February

(December 9, 1998)  The administrative hearing in the FTC's antitrust action against Intel is schuduled to begin on February 23, 1999, in Washington DC, and could last for six weeks.  FTC Administrative Law Judge James Timony is presiding.

The Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint against Intel on June 8, 1998 alleging that Intel is a monopoly that illegally refused to deal with computer makers Compaq, Intergraph, and DEC in order to coerce them into surrendering certain intellectual property rights.  The FTC seeks a "cease and desist" order.  The Complaint alleges that Intel’s conduct constitutes unlawful monopolization, unlawful attempts to monopolize, and unfair methods of competition, all in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Intel's Answer asserts that "Intel has not monopolized any market, attempted to monopolize any market, or used any unfair methods of competition. Intel has not violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or any other antitrust law.  This is not an appropriate matter for action by the FTC. The allegations in this matter arise out of intellectual property disputes between Intel and three other major high technology companies. Two of those disputes have been settled on mutually agreeable terms among the parties. The third dispute is currently in litigation in Alabama. In each of these cases, Intel took reasonable, measured steps under the law and its contracts to protect its intellectual property and its core business. In none of these cases did Intel deny anyone a supply of microprocessors or any other product. Intel’s actions did not and could not harm competition in any relevant market."

The administrative hearing is scheduled to start on February 23, 1999, in Washington DC.  It will take place in Room 532 of the Main FTC building on Constitution Avenue.  The hearing will be open to the public, although Intel spokesman Chuck Malloy stated that "some sessions will be closed because of the administrative law judge's protective order."

The hearing could last for six weeks.  Malloy predicted "five to six weeks, but that is pure guess."  The FTC concurs.  Willard Tom stated: "typical for a case of this nature, goes on for several weeks, maybe six weeks."

Willard Tom, who is the Deputy Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, spoke to Tech Law Journal on December 7.  He expects Intel to file a dispositive motion: it is "fairly typical in cases of this sort."  The deadline for filing such motions is January 22, 1999.

Asked if the FTC would add any new factual allegations, Tom responded "no, except in the sense that whenever you go to trial you are fleshing out the bare bones allegations in the Complaint."  He also stated that "we would not introduce a major new theory of the case without ... (an amended complaint) or filing a new complaint."

Deputy Director Tom declined to comment on the status of settlement negotiations, or even to confirm or deny that negotiations are under way.  He also would not comment on whether the FTC would drop any of the claims in the Complaint prior to the hearing.

Joseph Kattan, an attorney with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which represents Intel in this matter, declined to discuss the case.