Free Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Subject Jurisdiction - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-md-01717-JJF Document 64-2 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. and )
AMD INTERNATIONAL SALES & SERVICE, )
LTD., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) C, A. No. 05~44I (UF)
v·l )
) E
INTEL CORPORATION and )
INTEL KABUSHIKI KAISI-IA, )
-
Defendants. ) ·
IN RE: )
)
INTEL CORP. MICROPROCESSOR ) MDL Docket No. G5-1717 (JJF) _
ANTITRUST LITIGATION )
I
PI-IIL PAUL, on behalf of himself )
and all others similarly situated, ) C.A. No. O5—485—5JF
)
Plaintiffs, ) CONSOLIDATED ACTION
)
v. )
)
INTEL CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDAN’I`S’ MOTION TO DISMISS AMD’S FOREIGN
COMMERCE CLAIMS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND STANDING
Upon consideration of all papers submitted on the Motion of Defendants Intel
Corporation and Intel Kabushiki Kaisha (collectively “Intel") to dismiss the foreign
commerce claims of plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and AMD International
Sales and Service, Ltd. (collectively "AMD") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
standing pursuant to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of`1982, 15 U,S.C.

Case 1:O5—md—O1717-JJF Document 64-2 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 2 of 3
§ 6a (2004) (hereinafter "PTAIA"), it is hereby ORDERED, that the aforesaid motion is
GRANTED.
AMD’s Complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief under the US., antitrust
laws for claims based on alleged Intel business practices relating to the sale of
microprocessors in foreign countries, claims the FTAIA places outside the reach of
federal jurisdiction. While the FTAIA permits AMD to seek relief in this action for
injury to its business or property from the alleged direct anticompetitive effects of Intel’s I
conduct on domestic U.S. commerce, it may not pursue claims of injury arising out of
conduct in foreign commerce that directly causes only foreign effects.! Pursuit of such
claims would require the regulation of the economies of foreign nations.
In particular, the Court dismisses all claims that are based on alleged lost sales of
AMD’s German-·made microprocessors to foreign customers, including:
• Paragraphs 40—44, 54, 57, 74, which all relate to the Japan OEMs (Sony,
Toshiba, NEC, Fujitsu and Hitachi), and are the very same claims and
allegations AMD raises in its lawsuits in Japan.
• Paragraphs 55, 56, 65, 75, 81, which relate to alleged interference with
AMD’s sales to European OEMs (Fujitsu·Siemens, NECCI and other
unnamed European OEMS).
• Paragraphs 81, 83, 86, which relate to alleged interference with the launch
of an AMD-based system by foreign OEMs or sales to these OEMs
(Lenovo, NECCI, MSI, Atipa, Solectron and Fujitsu··Siemens).
• Paragraphs 89, 93, 94, which relate to alleged interference with foreign
distributors sales in foreign countries (Ingram Micro in China, R.I.C. in
Germany, Paradigit and Quote Component in the Netherlands, Supercom
in Canada).
I This Order does not dismiss AMD’s claims that concern alleged lost import sales of
AMD’s German-mataufactured chips into the U.S., or microprocessors that AMD
produced in the U.S. prior to shifting its manufacturing to Germany.
2

Case 1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 64-2 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 3 of 3
• Paragraphs 100, 101, which relate to interference with sales to retailers in
Europe (Media Markt and Aidi in Germany, DSG, Toys ‘R’ US and Time
Computer in England, Conforrna and Bouianger in France).
• Paragraph lO6, which alleges interference with the German retail chain
Vobis hanging a banner advertising AMD products at the CeBit trade
show in Hanover, Germany.
SO ORDERED, this _ciay of 2006.
United States District Court Judge
3 i