Summary of
Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp.

Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation, Case No. CV 97-N-3023-NE, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, filed November 17, 1997.

Intel Corporation, Defendant-Appellant v. Intergraph Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal No. 98-1308, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Appeal of preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court, N.D. Alabama, on April 10, 1998.)

Nature of the Case. Intergraph, which makes workstations based on Intel microprocessors, sues its chip supplier, Intel, on a wide range of legal theories, including antitrust, anticompetitive behavior, and patent infringement, for withholding information and products.

Plaintiff. Intergraph Corporation (ticker INGR) provides comprehensive engineering, GIS, and IT solutions for the building, utilities and transportation industries, and local and national governments. Intergraph makes computers and workstations primarily for computer aided design, which are based on MS Windows NT operating system software and Intel microprocessors. Intergraph also develops CAD software. Attorneys: Lee Cooper and Luther Dorr, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400, Birmingham, Alabama, 35203, 205-254-1000. (See, complete list of attorneys, below.)

Defendant. Intel Corporation (ticker INTC) is the leading producer of microprocessor chips for personal computers. It makes microprocessors, flash memory chips, microcontrollers, chip sets, and networking, communications, and graphics products. Attorney: Joel Freed, Howrey & Simon, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, 20004, 202-783-0800. (See, complete list of attorneys, below.)

Status. The original complaint was filed in federal court in Alabama in November 1997.  Judge Edwin Nelson granted Intergraph a preliminary injunction on April 10, 1998, which requires Intel to continue to supply it with advanced product information, advanced microprocessor "chip samples," "early production chips," and "production chips." Intel promptly appealed this order. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on December 9, 1998. The Court of Appeal ruled in Intel's favor on November 5, 1999, vacating the injunction. Trial of the case is scheduled to begin on June 12, 2000.

Chronology with Links to Pleadings and other Materials.

• 11/17/97. Intergraph filed original Complaint (alleging anticompetitive behavior and patent infringement).
• 11/17/97. Intel filed suit against Intergraph U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.) in San Jose, CA.
• 11/21/97. Intergraph filed motion to enjoin Intel from cutting off or delaying the supply of chips and product information. (Link to Intergraph website.)
• 12/3/98. Intergraph filed Amended Complaint, adding a federal antitrust claim.
• 12/3/98. Intergraph filed a Brief in upport of its motion to enjoin Intel from cutting off or delaying the supply of chips and information. (Link to Intergraph website.)
• 12/8/98. U.S. District Court (N.D.Ala.) heard oral argument on Intergraph's motion ot enjoin Intel.
• 2/8/98. Intergraph filed supplemental motion to enjoin Intel. (Link to Intergraph website.)
• 4/10/98. U.S. District Court (N.D.Ala.) issued Memorandum of Opinion and Preliminary Injunction.
• 4/16/98. Intel files notice of appeal of 4/10/98 order with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• 5/11/98. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Intel's motion to expediate appeal.
• 5/18/98. U.S. District Court (N.D.Ala.) denied Intel's motion for change of venue.   (Order in Intergraph website.)
• 6/8/98. Federal Trade Commission filed administrative antitrust Complaint against Intel based on Intel's dealings with customers Intergraph, DEC, and Compaq. The FTC alleged that Intel illegally used its market power by denying three customers with which it had intellectual property disputes continuing access to technical information necessary to develop computer systems based on Intel microprocessors.  (See, Summary of FTC v. Intel.)
• 6/8/98. Intel filed Appeal Brief with U.S. Court of Appeals. (Due to its size, this brief is split into four web pages: Cover Page, Table of Contents, Table of Authorities, and body of the brief)
• 6/17/98. Intel filed motion for summary judgment.
• 6/24/98. U.S. District Court (N.D.Ala.) held scheduling conference. Trial is set for February 14, 2000.
• 7/20/98. Intergraph filed opposition brief  with U.S. Court of Appeals. (Link to Intergraph website.)
• 11/13/98. Intergraph filed a second amended complaint, adding new patent infringement claims. (Link to Intergraph website.)
• 12/9/98. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument. (Tech Law Journal Story.)
• 3/8/99. The FTC and Intel reached a proposed settlement agreement.
• 3/17/99. The Federal Trade Commission approved the settlement with Intel by a vote of 3 to 1.
• 8/25/99. Intergraph filed a motion to compel Intel to comply with the preliminary injunction order of 4/10/98. (Tech Law Journal story.)
• 11/5/99. Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's preliminary injunction. See:
  • Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • Tech Law Journal story.

Intergraph Corporation Information.

• Website:
  • Intergraph Corp. Homepage.
  • Intergraph v. Intel Summary Page.
  • Chronology of Lawsuit.
• Public Relations:
  • Aggie Frizzell, 205-730-6139, 800-316-0576 (pager), alfrizze@ingr.com
  • Keith Britnell: 205-730-8073, 205-730-8300 (fax), ckbritne@ingr.com
  • Aaron Kwittken, Fleishman-Hillard: 212-453-2240 (office), 800-313-3471 (pager), kwittkea@fleishman.com
• Attorneys
  • N. Lee Cooper and Luther M. Dorr, Jr., Of Counsel, MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400, Birmingham, Alabama, 35203, 205-254-1000.
  • William J. Baxley and Joel E. Dillard, Of Counsel, BAXLEY, DILLARD, DAUPHIN & McKNIGHT, 200 16th Avenue South, Birmingham, Alabama 35205, 205-939-0995
  • David Vance Lucas, Senior Counsel, INTERGRAPH CORPORATION, 289 Dunlop Boulevard, Huntsville, Alabama, 35894-0001, 205-730-2032.
  • William L. Jaeger, William J. Bohler, and K. T. Cherian, Of Counsel, TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, Two Embarcadero Center, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111, 415-576-0200.

Intel Corporation Information.

• Website: Intel Corporation Home Page.
• Attorneys:
• Joel M. Freed and Anthony W. Shaw, Howrey & Simon, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20004.
• Peter N. Detkin and Thomas C. Reynolds, Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California, 95052-8119.
• Thad Long, BRADLEY, ARANT, ROSE & WHITE LLP, 1400 Park Place Tower, Birmingham, Alabama, 35203.
• Gary C. Huckaby, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, 200 Clinton Avenue West, Suite 900, Huntsville, Alabama 35801-4900.

Excerpt from Judge Edwin Nelson's April 10, 1998 Preliminary Injunction

Judge Nelson's Order requires Intel to provide Intergraph with advanced product information, advanced microprocessor "chip samples," "early production chips," and "production chips." The exact language is as follows:

"Intel Corporation, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with any of them, shall be and they hereby are PRELIMINARY ENJOINED 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, including but not limited to the following:

a. Intel shall supply Intergraph with all Intel product information, including but not limited to technical, design, development, defect, specification, support, supply, future product, product release or sample data, whether existing in product data books, "yellow backs," Confidential Information Transmittal Records, email or other mediums (hereinafter "Information"), in such form and content as supplied to and at the same time Intel supplies such Information to Intergraph’s similarly situated competitors, such as Hewlett Packard, Compaq, Dell, IBM, NetPower and Silicon Graphics (hereinafter "the Competitors"), whether it is on an advance basis for the development of motherboards, graphics subsystems or workstations utilizing Intel’s existing, or future generation products (hereinafter "Product Development"), on current products as needed for support of such products. Intel shall be required to maintain a log of the disclosure of Information to Intergraph and its similarly situated Competitors, and upon request of the court, certify to this court its compliance with the procedures and timely delivery of such Information.

b. Intel shall supply to Intergraph all Information of the type or content made available by Intel to Intergraph through third parties (hereinafter "Third Party Information"), at the same time it permits, or provides, the disclosure of such Third Party Information to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors, whether it is on an advance basis for Product Development or on a current basis for the support of products in distribution. Intel shall be required to maintain a log of the disclosure of Third Party Information to Intergraph and its Competitors, and upon request of the court, certify to this court its compliance with the procedures and timely delivery of such Information.

c. Intel shall supply Intergraph with an allocation, and set aside a supply of microprocessors, semiconductors, chips, and buses (hereinafter "Chips") on an advance basis for product development ("Chips Samples"), in such quantities as forecasted by Intergraph in the same manner and the same terms as is done by Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors, or in proportional quantities as supplied to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors, and at the same time Intel supplies such Chips Samples to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors, at the prevailing rate charged to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors. Intel shall be required to maintain a log of the release, or delivery, of Chips Samples to Intergraph and its Competitors, and upon request of the court, certify to this court its compliance with the procedures and delivery of such Chips Samples.

d. Within eleven (11) days of the date on which Intergraph posts the bond, as required by subsection (h) of this order, Intel shall supply Intergraph with 25 sets of Deschutes Chips Samples, together with all technical data needed to permit Intergraph to develop, design, and manufacture its products. Such technical data shall be of the same type, nature, and extent of technical data provided to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors.

e. Intel shall supply Intergraph with an allocation, and set aside a supply, of Chips which have been manufactured by or on behalf of Intel for distribution (hereinafter "Production Chips"), as well as all future chips proposed by, or available from Intel, including but not limited to 333mhz Pentium II, BX, Deschutes and Merced Chips, in accordance with a forecast supplied by Intergraph. Intergraph shall provide Intel with a forecast for Production Chips at least one (1) quarter in advance of the quarter in which Intergraph desires to receive delivery of such Production Chips.

(i) Intel shall supply its authorized distributors with sufficient quantities of Production Chips to fulfill Intergraph’s allocation of Production Chips, when such allocation has been presented by Intergraph to Intel’s authorized distributor for fulfillment. Intergraph shall, as it has agreed to do, purchase Production Chips available through Intel’s authorized distributors by placing an order for such an authorized distributor to fulfill Intergraph’s Production Chips allocation. Intergraph shall negotiate the terms and conditions for the supply of its Production Chips allocation with any Intel authorized distributor of its choosing, and Intel shall not take any action, or fail to take any action, that will interfere with or effect Intergraph’s terms, conditions, negotiations or relationship with the Intel authorized distributor selected by Intergraph, including but not limited to actions pertaining to prices, discounts, volumes, shipping or delivery pertaining to such Production Chips. Intel shall be required, upon request of the court, to certify to this court its compliance with the procedures with the applicable authorized distributor and delivery of such Production Chips.

(ii) Intel shall supply Intergraph with Production Chips not yet available from Intel’s authorized distributors ("Early Production Chips") in such quantities as forecasted by Intergraph, or in proportional quantities as supplied to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors, at the same time Intel supplies such Early Production Chips to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors, at the prevailing rate charged to Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors. Intel shall be required to maintain a log of the simultaneous release, or delivery, of Early Production Chips to Intergraph and its similarly situated Competitors, and upon request of the court certify to this court its compliance with the procedures and delivery of such Early Production Chips. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Intel shall supply Intergraph those Early Production Chips ordered by Intergraph for the 1st Quarter of 1998 at the prices previously agreed to by the parties.

f. Intel shall include Intergraph as an "active member of the Intel Inside program," and provide it all rights, privileges and opportunities made available to all other members.

g. Intel shall provide Intergraph "marketing involvement" and include it in "new product introduction events" of the type in which Intel includes Intergraph’s similarly situated Competitors.

h. Within eleven (11) days of the date on which this order is entered, Intergraph shall post a bond with the clerk of the court, subject to approval by the clerk of the court, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), in the amount of $25,000.00, as security against and as payment for such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by Intel in the event that Intel is found to have been wrongly enjoined by this order.

i. Intergraph shall maintain the confidentiality of all Information, Third Party Information, Chip Samples and Early Production Chips, in accordance with the terms, conditions and procedures of the applicable non-disclosure agreements as previously agreed to by the parties. The Confidentiality provisions of any applicable non-disclosure agreements previously entered into by and between Intel and Intergraph are expressly incorporated herein.

Excerpt from the Opinion of the Court of Appeals

INJUNCTION VACATED