Intel 2009 Annual Report Download - page 117

Table of Contents
INTEL CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Antitrust Derivative Litigation and Related Matters
In February 2008, Martin Smilow, an Intel stockholder, filed a putative derivative action in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against members of our Board of Directors. The complaint alleges generally that the Board allowed
the company to violate antitrust and other laws, as described in AMD’s antitrust lawsuits against us, and that those Board-
sanctioned activities have harmed the company. The complaint repeats many of AMD’s allegations and references various
investigations by the EC, the KFTC, and others. In February 2008, a second plaintiff, Evan Tobias, filed a derivative suit in the
same court against the Board containing many of the same allegations as in the Smilow suit. On July 30, 2008, the District
Court entered an order directing Smilow and Tobias to file a single, consolidated complaint by August 7, 2008 and directing
us to respond within 30 days thereafter. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on August 7, 2008. In June 2009, the
Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint, with prejudice.
In June 2008, a third plaintiff, Christine Del Gaizo, filed a derivative suit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court against the
Board, a former director of the Board, and six of our officers, containing many of the same allegations as in the Smilow and
Tobias suits. In August 2008, the parties in the California derivative suit entered into a stipulation to stay the action pending
further order of the court, and the court entered an order to that effect in September 2008.
In November 2009, a fourth plaintiff, Charles Gilman, filed a stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against Intel’s current Board members as well as three former Board members. Gilman’s complaint
makes many of the same allegations raised in the earlier suits, additionally cites a number of excerpts from the EC’s ruling,
and points to the settlement of the AMD litigation as supposed evidence of damage to Intel.
In December 2009, a fifth plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employee Retirement System (LMPERS), filed a stockholder
derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Intel’s current Board members as well as
three former Board members. LMPERS’s complaint makes many of the same allegations raised in the earlier suits, and
additionally incorporates by reference the allegations made in the lawsuit filed against Intel by the New York Attorney
General. In January 2010, Delaware District Court Judge Farnan signed a stipulated order consolidating the Gilman and
LMPERS actions under the name In re Intel Corp. Derivative Litigation
. Gilman and LMPERS filed a consolidated complaint
in February 2010. We deny the allegations in all of these derivative suits and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Intel stockholders Martin Smilow and the Rosenfeld Family Foundation filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court in
November 2009 to enforce an inspection demand that they had previously made pursuant to section 220 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law. Intel denies the allegations and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Intel Corporation v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
In May 2005, Intel filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against CSIRO, an
Australian research institute. CSIRO had sent letters to Intel customers claiming that products compliant with the IEEE
802.11a and 802.11g standards infringe CSIRO’s U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (the ’069 patent). Intel’s lawsuit sought a
declaration that the CSIRO patent is invalid and that no Intel product infringes it. Dell Inc. was a co-declaratory judgment
plaintiff with Intel; Microsoft Corporation, Netgear Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company filed a similar, separate lawsuit
against CSIRO. In its amended answer, CSIRO claimed that various Intel products compliant with the IEEE 802.11a, 802.11g,
and/or draft 802.11n standards infringe the ’069 patent. In 2009, we entered into a settlement agreement with CSIRO pursuant
to which, among other things, we made payments to CSIRO in exchange for a license to certain patents. The settlement
agreement did not significantly impact our results of operations or cash flows.
106