Intel 2006 Annual Report Download - page 32

Table of Contents
Intel is also subject to certain antitrust regulatory inquiries. In 2001, the European Commission commenced an investigation
regarding claims by AMD that Intel used unfair business practices to persuade clients to buy Intel microprocessors. In June
2005, Intel received an inquiry from the Korea Fair Trade Commission requesting documents from Intel’s Korean subsidiary
related to marketing and rebate programs that Intel entered into with Korean PC manufacturers. Intel is cooperating with these
agencies in their investigations and expects that these matters will be acceptably resolved.
Barbara’s Sales, et al. v. Intel Corporation, Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company and HPDirect, Inc.
Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois
In June 2002, various plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, against Intel,
Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and HPDirect, Inc. alleging that the defendants’ advertisements and statements
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems containing Intel Pentium 4 processors
are less powerful and slower than systems containing Intel
®
Pentium
®
III processors and a competitor’s microprocessors. In
July 2004, the court certified against Intel an Illinois-only class of certain end-use purchasers of certain Pentium 4 processors
or computers containing such microprocessors. In January 2005, the Circuit Court granted a motion filed jointly by the
plaintiffs and Intel that stayed the proceedings in the trial court pending discretionary appellate review of the Circuit Court’s
class certification order. In July 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, vacated the Circuit Court’s class certification
order, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to reconsider its class certification ruling. In August 2006,
the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the Appellate Court’s decision, and that review is pending. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The company disputes the plaintiffs’ claims and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.
AmberWave Systems Corporation v. Intel Corporation
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Beginning in May 2005, Intel and AmberWave Systems Corporation filed a series of lawsuits against each other that were
consolidated into actions in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. AmberWave claimed that certain
Intel semiconductor manufacturing processes infringed six AmberWave patents related to semiconductor fabrication.
AmberWave sought damages, treble damages for alleged willful infringement, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees. Intel
disputed AmberWave’s allegations and defended the lawsuits vigorously. In 2007, Intel and AmberWave entered into a
license agreement under which, among other terms, Intel agreed to make certain payments to AmberWave, and AmberWave
agreed to license AmberWave’s patent portfolio to Intel. The parties agreed to jointly dismiss the actions with prejudice.
Transmeta Corporation v. Intel Corporation
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
In October 2006, Transmeta Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Transmeta alleges that Intel’
s P6, Pentium 4, Pentium M, Intel Core, and Intel Core 2 processors infringe 10 Transmeta patents
alleged to cover computer architecture and power-efficiency technologies. In December 2006, Transmeta filed an amended
complaint alleging that Intel’s processors infringe an eleventh Transmeta patent. Intel filed counterclaims against Transmeta
alleging that Transmeta’
s Crusoe, Efficeon, and Efficeon 2 families of microprocessors infringe seven Intel patents. Transmeta
seeks damages, treble damages, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees. Intel disputes Transmeta’s allegations of infringement and
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
None.
22
ITEM 4.
SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS