Intergraph Corp v. Intel Corp
Decision Date | 08 June 2001 |
Citation | 253 F.3d 695 |
Parties | (Fed. Cir. 2001) INTERGRAPH CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. 00-1368 DECIDED: |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] William L. Jaeger, Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Richard L. Grossman and Margaret C. McHugh. Of counsel on the brief was David Vance Lucas, General Counsel, Intergraph Corporation, of Huntsville, Alabama. Also of counsel on the brief were John G. Roberts, Jr. and Jonathan S. Franklin, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., of Washington, DC.
Marc G. Schildkraut, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Joel M. Freed, Darren B. Bernhard, and Howard T. Rosenblatt. Of counsel was Mary F. Walters. Of counsel on the brief were Peter N. Detkin and Thomas C. Reynolds, Intel Corporation, of Santa Clara, California.
Before NEWMAN, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
In Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation, 195 F.3d 1346, 52 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Intergraph I) this court held that Intel did not violate the antitrust laws by withholding certain proprietary information and product samples from Intergraph, following upon Intergraph's assertion of its Clipper patents against Intel products. Intergraph I held that Intergraph had not established grounds on which to litigate whether Intel was a "monopolist," for Intergraph's asserted injury did not derive from anticompetitive actions by Intel. On remand the district court held that Intergraph I precluded relitigation of the antitrust issues, and entered judgment to that effect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 54 USPQ2d 1431 (N.D. Ala. 2000) (Intergraph II). Intergraph appeals that judgment.
Intergraph argued to the district court that it was entitled to relitigate its charges of antitrust violation by Intel, along with the several contract and tort claims that remain for trial. The district court held that the resolution of the antitrust issues in Intergraph I is the law of the case.
The doctrine of law of the case generally bars retrial of issues that were previously resolved. See, e.g., Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912) ( ); Delong Equipment Co. v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corp., 990 F.2d 1186, 1196 (11th Cir. 1993) (); Royal Insurance Co. v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 881 (5th Cir. 1993) ( ); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 684 (11th Cir. 1988) ( ); Terrell v. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau, 494 F.2d 16, 19-20 (5th Cir. 1974) ( ).
Reasons that may warrant departure from the law of the case, thus providing an exception to the more rigorous requirements of res judicata, include the discovery of new and different material evidence that was not presented in the prior action, or an intervening change of controlling legal authority, or when the prior decision is clearly incorrect and its preservation would work a manifest injustice. See, e.g., Smith International Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1576, 225 USPQ 889, 891 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Intergraph argues that new evidence, particularly evidence compiled by the Federal Trade Commission in its investigation of Intel or discovered by Intergraph, shows Intel's anticompetitive behavior in the microprocessor field. Intergraph outlines this evidence in its brief on this appeal. We take note that the cited information is dated well before the decision in Intergraph I, yet was not brought to any court's attention either before the decision or by petition after the decision was rendered. The district court carefully reviewed whether the FTC proceedings had been brought to the attention of the Federal Circuit in Intergraph I. The district court noted that "Although Intergraph may have obtained more evidence related to the FTC's actions, the Federal Circuit was certainly aware of the actions . . . ." Intergraph II at 2 n.2 (emphasis in original). Intel also points out that a consent order does not establish illegal conduct. See ITT Continental Baking v. FTC, 532 F.2d 207, 223 n.23 (2d Cir. 1976); Beatrice Foods Co. v. FTC, 540 F.2d 303, 312 (7th Cir. 1976) ( ).
Intergraph does not explain how its purported new evidence is material to the issues properly in this case. The court in Intergraph I was concerned with the relationship between Intel and Intergraph, in considering the asserted injury to Intergraph due to Intel's withholding of proprietary information and advance chip samples in response to Intergraph's charges of patent infringement. Intergraph does not disagree that its "new" evidence relates only to Intel's relationships with its competitors in the microprocessor market, and does not assert that Intergraph competes in Intel's market. In Intergraph I this court confirmed that to violate the Sherman Act (Citations omitted.) The conclusion that "Intel's conduct with respect to Intergraph does not constitute the offense of monopolization or the threat thereof in any market relevant to competition with Intergraph," Intergraph I at 1356, 52 USPQ2d at 1647, remains unrelated to any additional evidence of Intel's actions in the microprocessor market.
The holding in Intergraph I conforms with the position that Intergraph was not "a proper party to bring a private antitrust action." Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 535 n.31 (1983). The Court in Associated General Contractors confirmed the judicial obligation to determine whether the plaintiff has standing to bring an antitrust claim, upon evaluation of "the plaintiff's harm, the alleged wrongdoing by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.
...share common facts does not preclude the entry of partial final judgment as to one or more of those claims. In Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 699(Fed.Cir.2001), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of final judgment as to antitrust laws under Rule 54(b) wh......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 14–65.
...having passed. The law of the case doctrine “generally bars retrial of issues that were previously resolved.” Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 697 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citing DeLong Equip. Co. v. Wash. Mills Electro Minerals Corp., 990 F.2d 1186, 1196 (11th Cir.1993) (“[T]he genera......
-
St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. United States
...the prior decision is clearly incorrect and its preservation would work a manifest injustice'" (quoting Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001))).4 Reconsideration of an interlocutory decision, however, is not intended to give a disappointed litigant an additiona......
-
United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...Framework The law of the case doctrine "generally bars retrial of issues that were previously resolved." Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing 229 F.Supp.3d 1323Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (law of the ca......
-
SSR 96-1p: Application by the Social Security Administration (SSA) of Federal Circuit Court and District Court Decisions
...changes in law, clear error and manifest injustice are examples of such exceptions. See, e.g. , Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. , 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Reasons that may warrant departure from the law of the case, thus providing an exception to the more rigorous requirements o......
-
SSR 96-1p: Application by the Social Security Administration (SSA) of Federal Circuit Court and District Court Decisions
...changes in law, clear error and manifest injustice are examples of such exceptions. See, e.g. , Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. , 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Reasons that may warrant departure from the law of the case, thus providing an exception to the more rigorous requirements o......
-
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
...1293 (N.D. Ala. 2000) (finding no antitrust liability for refusal to license and quoting Federal Circuit’s standard approvingly), aff’d , 253 F.3d 695 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Indep. Serv. Orgs. Antitrust Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1086, 1088-89 (D. Kan.) (holding that “where a patent has......
-
The "essential relationship" spectrum: a framework for addressing choice of procedural law in the federal circuit.
...jurisdiction). (13) See 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a) (2000) (defining patent infringement). (14) See, e.g., Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (discussing patents in relation to an antitrust (15) The general rule is that a case is appealable to the Federal Circuit if......