Interesting question. A jury trial may be requested by either party during one or another trial setting or status conferences.
There is no hurry, except that the court probably wants to know prior to setting a time.
Here time has been set, so the decision has been made, maybe.
BUT- as to antitrust legal issues no jury can be had. It is the jury's provence to decide facts, not law.
Interestingly enough the difference between the two is somewhat vague.
But the "better opinion" is that there are no facts here, or that the facts will be stipulated, so that there will not be a need for a jury.
The question of whether certain pricing structures constitute predatory pricing is a question of law, not fact.
Whether the fact of say Intel exclusive sales was a result of undue influence or a matter of business decision is somewhat more nebulous, but again, whether the "agreement", IF ANY, constitutes a restraint of trade, is probably again, a matter of law, and again, no jury.
Intel would favor a non-jury trial in that if the decision were to go against them it is much easier to appeal a judge's ruling on the law as against a jury's conclusion as to a fact.
AMD would favor a jury trial, at least in part, because the law is against them and they would hope to curry the favor of the emotions of a jury against the Big Bad Defendant who smashed them at every opportunity and kept them from even having a chance.... and like that.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
