Document: Intel Appeal Brief, Table of Contents, 6/8/98.

Tech Law Journal
News, records, and analysis of legislation, litigation, and regulation affecting the computer, internet, communications and information technology sectors
TLJ Links: Home \| Calendar \| Subscribe \| Back Issues \| Reference Other: Thomas \| USC \| CFR \| FR \| FCC \| USPTO \| CO \| NTIA \| EDGAR

Appeal Brief of Intel (Part II - Table of Contents).
Re: Intel v. Intergraph.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 98-1308.
Date filed: June 8, 1998.
Source: Chuck Mulloy, Intel Corp.

This document is split into four parts:

Part I -- Title Page and Certificate of Interest.
Part II -- Table of Contents (with hyperlinks).
Part III -- Table of Authorities, Statement of Related Cases, and Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction.
Part IV -- The body of the brief (pages 1-66).

This document was created by Tech Law Journal by converting a MS Word 8.0 version into HTML. Several features were eliminated in the conversion, including double spacing, and paragraph indentations. Footnotes were converted into sidenotes. Copyright 1998 Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.

[begin page ii]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES					v
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES					xv
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION					xvi
I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES					1
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE					3
	A. The Parties And Their Relationship Leading To The Patent Dispute				3
	B. Intergraph Sued Intel For Patent Infringement And Then Sought A Mandatory Injunction Requiring Intel to Supply Its Pre-Release CPUs and Technical Data				5
	C. The District Court’s Order is Premised On How Delayed Access To Intel’s CPUs and Technical Information Affects Intergraph, Not Competition				6
	D. The District Court’s Alternative Grounds For Its Preliminary Injunction				9
III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT					11
IV. THE ARGUMENT					17
	A. The District Court Misconstrued All Applicable Legal Standards For Granting A Mandatory Preliminary Injunction				17
	B. Intergraph Is Not Likely To Succeed On Its Antitrust Claim				20
		1. Intel Has No Affirmative Duty To Deal Unless It Is Leveraging One Monopoly To Achieve Another Monopoly			20
		2. Intergraph Cannot Establish That Intel Can Leverage Any Alleged CPU "Monopoly" Into A Graphics Subsystems "Market"			22
[begin page iii]
			a. Intel Did Not Attempt To Monopolize A Graphics Subsystems "Market"		23
				i. The District Court Did Not And Could Not Properly Define A Graphics Subsystems "Market"	24
				ii. Intel Did Not Have A Dangerous Probability Of Monopolizing A Graphics Subsystems "Market"	26
				iii. Intel Did Not Have A Specific Intent To Monopolize A Graphics Subsystems "Market"	29
			b. Intel Will Not Gain An "Advantage" In A Purported Graphics Subsystems "Market"		30
				i. A Refusal To Deal To Gain An Advantage In A Second Market Is Not Unlawful	30
				ii. There Is No Evidence Showing Intel Will Even Gain An "Advantage" In A Graphics Subsystems "Market"	32
		3. The Antitrust Laws Do Not Strip Intel Of Its Intellectual Property Rights			35
			a. A Refusal To Sell Or Provide A Patented Good Or Copyrighted Material Does Not Violate The Antitrust Laws		35
			b. The District Court Erred In Rejecting Intel’s Justification For Excluding Intergraph From Intel’s Patented Goods		38
			c. Intel Has No Obligation Under The Antitrust Laws To Pre-Disclose Trade Secrets		41
		4. The District Court’s Finding Of Monopoly Power In Two Primary Markets Constitutes Reversible Error			42
		5. The District Court’s Findings On Intel’s Alleged Attempt To Monopolize Do Not Justify The Particular Relief Granted			46
[begin page iv]
		6. None Of The Other Antitrust Claims Justifies The Relief			46
	C. Intergraph Is Not Likely To Succeed On Its Contract Claim				48
		1. The One Page Letter Is Not An Enforceable Contract			48
			a. The District Court Erred In Concluding That The One-Page Letter Contained The Elements Of A Contract		49
			b. The Court Erred In Interpreting And Enforcing The Letter Contrary To Its Express Language		52
		2. The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Granting A Preliminary Injunction Based On Intergraph’s Contract Claim			53
		3. The Termination Provision Of The NDA Is Not Unconscionable			54
	D. The Harm To Intel, Third Parties And The Public Will Outweigh The Harm To Intergraph				58
	E. The Injunction Does Not Satisfy The Requirements Of Rule 65				63
V. CONCLUSION					66
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHEASTERN DIVISION, OPINION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DATED APRIL 10, 1998
PROOF OF SERVICE

Go to Part III, Table of Authorities.