13.07.2015 Views

Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

efusal to deal. In that case, Intel, a manufacturer <strong>of</strong> computermicroprocessors, supplied Intergraph, an original equipmentmanufacturer (OEM), with microprocessors for their computerworkstations.215 Intel saw Intergraph as a special customer andprovided Intergraph with various special benefits, includingproprietary information and products, under non-disclosureagreements.216 Through a series <strong>of</strong> events in <strong>No</strong>vember 1997,Intergraph sued Intel for infringement <strong>of</strong> the certain patents thatit held.217 In this litigation, Intergraph also sought an injunctionto stop Intel from cutting <strong>of</strong>f the supply <strong>of</strong> benefits toIntergraph.218 Intel opposed this motion and Intergraph amendedtheir claim to say that Intel was in violation <strong>of</strong> antitrust laws,basically on the basis that it refused to deal its information toIntergraph, even though Intergraph was suing it on other groundsfor patent infringement.219 The question was, in essence, is itlegitimate to refuse to supply someone with your informationalvalue in the face <strong>of</strong> suit by them on other grounds?The district court enjoined Intel from refusing to supplyinformation and Intel appealed, arguing that no law required it togive such special benefits, including its trade secrets, proprietaryinformation, intellectual property, pre-release products, allocation<strong>of</strong> new products and other preferences, to an entity that was suingit on charges <strong>of</strong> multiple wrongdoings.220The court noted that Intergraph and Intel operated indifferent markets and were not competitors.221 While Intel mighthold a large share <strong>of</strong> the market for microprocessors, it could notbe held liable for growing its monopoly through anti-competitiveconduct by a non-competitor or consumer.222 Intergraph alsoclaimed that Intel’s information was an essential facility and thatit should be allowed access to it.223 The essential facility doctrineprovides an obligation to deal/supply but usually relates to coretangible infrastructure, like railway lines or electricity wires. In215. Id. at 1349.216. Id. at 1350.217. Id.218. Id.219. Id.220. Intergraph Corp., 195 F.3d at 1350.221. Id. at 1352-56.222. Id. at 1353.223. Id. at 1356.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!