Elmer, Re: <Where do you see the court found against Intel?>
It is undisputed that Fairchild did not agree to include the Clipper patent applications in the cross-license agreement. Indeed Fairchild, when it became National's subsidiary, could not agree to include the Clipper patent applications in the cross-license agreement, for Fairchild had sold these applications to Intergraph exclusively and free of encumbrances.
.
.
.
Intergraph Corporation appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,1 granting summary judgment that Intel Corporation is licensed to practice the inventions of Intergraph's United States Patents Nos. 4,860,192, 4,884,197, 4,933,835, and 5,091,846 (together "the Clipper patents"), and dismissing Intergraph's claims for patent infringement. We conclude that Intel is not licensed under these patents.
laws.lp.findlaw.com
A pretty good write-up -- from The Huntsville Times is at
al.com
tgptndr |
