Well fellow Packers:
This Intel news out tonight could drive the stock of Intergraph Corp. if by some chance in hell Intel lost it's rights here INGR might be a $90.00 stock & not a $9.00 stock .. this should be interesting.
INGR hit $10.25 a 52 wk high & settled at $9.84 on 765k traded
Monday June 7, 9:40 pm Eastern Time
FOCUS -Intel suffers setback in Intergraph lawsuit
(Adds details, Intergraph comments, previous Huntsville)
By Therese Poletti
SAN FRANCISCO, June 7 (Reuters) - Intel Corp. was hit with a setback on Monday in its
lawsuit with workstation computer maker Intergraph Corp. when a U.S. District Court judge
ruled that it does not have the rights to the patents of Intergraph's Clipper chip technology.
The ruling is part of a broad lawsuit filed by Hunstville, Ala.-based Intergraph against the world's largest computer chip maker in
November 1997 alleging patent infringement, illegal coercive behaviour and antitrust violations.
The ruling is another setback for Intel in the case. In April of last year, the judge granted a preliminary injunction requiring Intel to
supply Intergraph with chips and technical information on its products. Intel had cut Intergraph off from receiving information
about its future chips - which Intergraph uses in its workstations - because of the patent dispute.
The case is still set to go to trial at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Feb. 14, 2000, which will then
determine whether Intel is guilty of patent infringement.
Intergraph's patent lawsuit suit alleges that Intel is using its patented Clipper microprocessor chip technology for cache memory
management without a license, as part of Intel's Pentium family of microprocessors, which are the ''brains'' in most personal
computers.
''Intel repeatedly has made a big issue about the 'fact' they have a license to the Clipper patents,'' said Intergraph chief executive
and chairman Jim Meadlock. ''The court affirms they don't have such a license. We believe the entire Pentium family infringes on
our patents.''
Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel has maintained it had the rights to the Clipper patents through a long-standing broad
cross-licensing agreement with National Semiconductor Corp. that dates back to 1976.
In 1987, Intergraph and National each bought parts of Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., whose Advanced Microprocessor
Division was the original developer of the Clipper chip.
Intergraph said that it was in talks to buy Fairchild's Advanced Microprocessor Division in September 1987, and that it had
reached an agreement that obligated Fairchild to transfer to Intergraph the assets of the division, including patents for the Clipper
technology.
Then in October 1987, National acquired the controlling interest in Fairchild's stock, making Fairchild a subsidiary of National.
An Intergraph spokeswoman said that on the day of the merger, Fairchild transferred to Intergraph all the assets of its Advanced
Microprocessor Division.
''The undisputed facts establish that NSC (National Semiconductor) had no legal authority to grant a license, as the patents at
issue belonged not to NSC but to a legally distinct corporation - Fairchild,'' said U.S. District Court Judge Edwin Nelson, in a
ruling issued late Friday. ''Intel thus never received a license from any entity with the power to grant one.''
Intel said it was disappointed with the ruling and that it plans to pursue an appeal on this point of the case.
''We are disappointed and respectfully disagree with the judge,'' said Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman. ''We believe that this
ruling has very broad and unprecedented implications. Given our concerns about the broad implications of this ruling, we plan to
pursue an appeal.''
Mulloy said the ruling, that says a company like National must get permission from a subsidiary, in this case Fairchild, before a
license goes into effect will changes the way cross-licenses are set up, a common practice in the industry.
''The ruling is unprecedented in that it obligates companies to enter into agreements with every subsidiary of the company,''
Mulloy said. He added that Intel's claim of a license to the Clipper technology is not its only defense in the case. |
