Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 F. Supp. 2d 1255 - Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp.

3 F. Supp. 2d 1255 - Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2004
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Bibby v. United States · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Confidential Information Transmittal Records, email or other mediums . . . , whether it is on an advance basis for the development of motherboards, graphics subsystems or workstations utilizing Intel's existing, or future generation products (hereinafter”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp.
  2. “Intel's retaliatory lawsuits and the threatened and actual termination of its non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with Intergraph, under which Intel provided technical information to Intergraph, constitute unlawful restraints of trade.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp.
  3. “overall course of conduct, including its tying of a continued supply to Intergraph of CPUs and technical information with its demand for Intergraph's relinquishment of its Clipper technology patents without costs to Intel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp.

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.