This article is more than 1 year old
AMD-Intel legal battle will not go West
Court case to be heard in Delaware, not California
AMD vs Intel AMD's anti-trust lawsuit brought against Intel will be heard in the US District Court of Delware under Judge Joseph Farman, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has ruled.
However, pre-trial procedures relating to other anti-trust actions against the chip giant will be consolidated into AMD's action, the Panel said.
The JPML judgement follows a hearing held on 29 September, in Asheville, North Carolina, at which representatives from AMD and plaintiffs in other, similar lawsuits filed against Intel debated whether to transfer cases from Delaware to Northern California and there to merge them into a single action.
The request to do so came from two Californian plaintiffs, Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes, who asked the JPML in July to order the transfer of four other cases coming up before the Delaware Court to the US District Court of Northern California and consolidated with ten anti-Intel class actions taking place there. Another class-action plaintiff, Justin Suarez, subsequently asked that the cases be transferred to his chosen venue, San Diego, part of the US District of Southern California.
In August, AMD told the JPML it did not wish either move to take place. It said 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.
"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 told the Panel.
Intel also argued that the AMD case should be heard in Delaware.
The AMD case will now continue to be heard in Delaware. However, so will all the others, provided that Judge Farman agrees. The JPML rejected AMD's request that its action should be treated separately.
"The Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact," the JPML said. Combining them will "promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation."
However, the company can make such a request again, to Judge Farman, who may accept its request. ®