Replies to post #69854 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Sarmad]

let's say Intel does not challenge AMD's claim that with 50% board control, TFC is covered by the cross license. However, if after 2010, TFC becomes 75% owned by Abu Dhabi, and is clearly not controlled by AMD, would that mean that the patents prior to 2010 will no longer be licensed to TFC ?

That means either AMD has to maintain its 50% "controlling interest", or get new terms from Intel that allow it to outsource to a non-controlled fab ? Even if the current agreement is allowed to expire without challenge.

[Elmer Phud]

Windsock -

Thanks for your explanation. I have a feeling we'll see how this plays out.

[The Duke of URL]

It is not a very simple answer:

As you know, the concept of the "burden of proof" is divided into two categories. One is the "Burden of going Forward" (with the evidence) and the other is the "Burden of Non-Persuasion. I think Intel would have both as to the issue of whether or not FactoryCo is a "subsidiary" in law, and under the contract.

In civil law, "tie goes to the runner" or in other words, Intel must prove, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE that AMD breached the contract. But if Intel can establish that FactoryCo. is NOT a subsidiary, then they can very easily meet the burden of going forward, alleging transfer of Patent Technology.

Intel must allege and prove that AMD is not in control of the entity; that the entity, as structured as a mater of law is not a "subsidiary". Unfortunately, I think Intel would also have the burden of Non-Persuasion. The must convince a judge that FactoryCo is not a subsidiary.

If this can be established, then a prima facie case of breach would then exist.

IF Intel can do this, then the burden of proof would shift (Bordon of non-persuasion) to AMD to prove that it is not using Intel patented IP or that Intel IP which is protected, has not been transfered to FactoryCo.