This article is more than 1 year old
AMD rejects request to send Intel case to California
Doesn't want to be part of class-action cases, either
AMD vs Intel AMD has formally requested its legal battle with Intel not be bundled up with a series of consumer class actions against the chip giant, court documents seen by The Register reveal.
Separately, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has ordered a hearing to be held on 29 September to consider the requests concerning the movement of the case from Delaware to Northern California
Last month, the US District Court of Delaware, where the AMD vs Intel case is due to be heard, was notified that two Californian plaintiffs, Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes, had asked the JPML to order the four other cases coming up before the Delaware Court to be transferred to the US District Court of Northern California and consolidated with ten anti-Intel class actions taking place there.
All the cases aside from AMD's are complaints filed by consumers, singly and in groups, against Intel in the light of the announcement of AMD's legal action.
According to the JPML request, all the extra cases "arise out of the same or similar illegal antitrust conduct and allege substantially similar claims... [and] a common core of factual allegations, namely, that Intel illegally maintained its monopoly power in the relevant microprocessor market and/or engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in that market by fixing the prices and/or allocating markets for Intel chips solid in the United States and elsewhere, thus overcharging Original Equipment Manufacturer purchasers and consumers for prices paid for Intel chips during the relevant time period".
However, AMD this week filed its motion that the move to transfer and consolidate the case be denied. The chip maker argues that its action against Intel is not only more serious but more urgent than the consumers' complaints. "AMD's suit targets Intel practices that have already destroyed all competition of note except AMD; AMD seeks to bring an end to those practices as expeditiously as possible, before they destroy AMD as well," the company's motion maintains.
"Although many of the class action complaints copy parts of AMD's complaint, they all assert injuries and seek damages of a categorically different nature than AMD's direct-competitor action," it continues.
It also points out that the case's "geographical centre of gravity" is in the East - essentially, that's where all the key witnesses and other participants are. Claimed efficiency gains arising from combining the cases will not actually materialise, it adds.
AMD's motion, along with the Californian plaintiffs' and, potentially, responses from Intel and other players in the drama, will be judged when the JPML meets at the end of September in Asheville, North Carolina. ®