8/14/2019 Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.pdf
1/2
Like One person likes this.INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO
DEVICES, INC.
Case Basics
Docket No.
02-572
Petitioner
Intel Corporation
Respondent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Decided By
Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)
Opinion
542 U.S. 241 (2004)Granted
Monday, November 10, 2003
Argued
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Decided
Monday, June 21, 2004
Advocates
Jeffrey P. Minear(argued the cause for Respondent, onbehalf of
the United States, as amicus
curiae)
Carter G. Phillips(argued the cause for Petitioner)
Patrick Lynch(argued the cause for Respondent)
Seth P. Waxman(argued the cause for Petitioner)
Tags
Privacy
Term:2000-2009 2003
Facts of the Case
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed a complaint against Intel
with the European
Commission, alleging that Intel was using its size to unfairly
dominate the computer
microprocessor market. Complaints filed with the European
Commission are f irst
reviewed by the commission's directorate general, which does
fact- finding to decide
whether or not to pursue the complaint. AMD asked the
directorate to review
documents containing some of Intel's trade secrets from a
separate American court
case involving Intel. The directorate declined.
Because European law did not provide a way for AMD to gain
access to the documents,
AMD filed suit against Intel in United States federal district
court seeking access to the
documents so that it could use them to support its complaint.
The suit was filed under
Title 28, Section 1782 of U.S. Code, which allows (but does not
require) federal districtcourts to give "interested persons" access
to material for proceedings before "foreign or
international tribunal(s)." AMD argued that, though the
directorate was only a
fact-finding body, the case could eventually be appealed to a
trial court and was
therefore covered under section 1782. Further, it argued that
the directorate's
unwillingness to demand the documents was irrelevant. Intel, on
the other hand, argued
that the directorate was not a "foreign or international
tribunal" and that the federal
district court therefore did not have the authority to compel
Intel to release the
documents. It also argued that the directorate's unwillingness
to compel production of
the documents should preclude U.S. action.
The district court sided with Intel, ruling that the
directorate's investigation was not a
foreign tribunal and that the court therefore could not give AMD
access to the
documents. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously
reversed the decision.After the case was accepted for review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, the European
Commission filed a brief in the case supporting Intel's position
that the directorate was
not a foreign tribunal.
Question
Does Section 1782 of Title 28 of U.S. Code authorize a federal
district court to compel
the release of material for use in a "foreign tribunal" when the
foreign tribunal itself is
unwilling to demand production of the material? Does Section
1782 authorize a federal
district court to compel the release of material for a
fact-finding investigation by the
directorate general of the European Commission on the theory
that the information may
eventually lead to an investigation by a foreign tribunal?
Conclusion
Decision:7 votes for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 1 vote(s)
against
Legal provision:28 U.S.C. 1782
Yes and Yes. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court ruled that just
because a foreign tribunal was unwilling to demand certain
documents did not mean that it would be unwilling to accept them
if provided to them by other means. By permitting, but not
forcing, American judges to allow discovery of certain
documents, Congress allowed judges to exercise their discretion
to
decide whether a foreign tribunal would be receptive to the the
documents at question. The Court also ruled that it would be
impractical to limit the fact-finding to only the actual trial
before a foreign tribunal because, in cases like this one, the
foreign
tribunal does not gather evidence itself but instead relies on
the evidence presented to the investigatory commission (in this
case the directorate general). In order to make the evidence
available for the tribunal, therefore, it would be necessary to
Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | The Oyez Project at IIT
Chi... http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003
10/24/13
