Free Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEE PINES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Lee Pines, by and through counsel, on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated, brings this action against Defendant Intel Corporation ("Intel") for
damages, and demands trial by jury, complaining and alleging upon information and
belief as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This action concerns Intel's anticompetitive and monopolistic practices in

the conduct of trade or commerce, specifically those acts and practices that it intended to

use, did use, and continues to use to prevent and destroy competition and acquire and/or maintain monopoly power and raise prices to supra-competitive levels in the market for
microprocessors that run the Microsoft Windows and Linux families of operating systems
("the x86 Microprocessor Market").
2.

Intel dominates the x86 Microprocessor Market, with greater than an

80 percent market share as measured by unit volume and greater than a 90 percent market

share as measured by revenue. It has engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts that

19684.1 \281215vl

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 2 of 30

were designed to, and did, eliminate competition and prevent entry in the x86
Microprocessor Market.
3.

Intel has used its monopoly power to injure consumers, by charging supra-

competitive prices for its microprocessors, which supra-competitive prices were passed
on to consumers, and by reducing the pace and quality of innovation.
4.

Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the class defined below, seeks

to recover for the injuries to his business or property resulting from his overpayments for

Intel microprocessors. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

The Cour has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 D.S.C. § 1332(d), in that this is a

class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive

of interest and costs, and in which some members of the proposed class are citizens of a
state different from the defendant.
6.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1391

(a) because Intel resides and

is subj ect to personal jurisdiction in this District and because a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

PARTIES
7.

Plaintiff Lee Pines is a resident of Highland, Michigan. During the

relevant time period, Plaintiff purchased a Dell Inspiron 5150 laptop computer that
contained an Intel microprocessor.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 3 of 30

8.

Defendant Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Santa Clara, California. It conducts business both directly and
through wholly-owned and dominated subsidiaries worldwide. Intel and its subsidiaries
design, produce, and sell a wide variety of microprocessors, flash memory devices, and
silicon-based products for use in the computer and communications industries.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS
9.
Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)

on his own behalf and on behalf of

the following Class:

All individuals and entities located in the United States that purchased a microprocessor indirectly from the defendant, or any controlled subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in one of the Included States (defined below), at any time during the period from August 2,2001 to the present (the "Class Period"), other than for resale. The Class excludes the defendant and its agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, offcers, directors, and employees. The Class fuher excludes governent entities, the judge presiding over this case, and the judge's immediate family and staff.
10.
For puroses of

the Complaint and class definition, the "Included States"

are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho, Iowa,

Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
11.

Plaintiff does not know the exact number of class members because such

information is in the exclusive control ofIntel and third parties. However, due to the
nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiff believes that the members of the

3

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 4 of 30

Class are sufficiently numerous and geographically diverse that joinder of all members of

the Class is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(I).
12.

There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including but

not limited to the following:
a.

Whether Intel engaged in anticompetitive conduct that renders it liable to the Class under state antitrust and consumer protection laws;
Whether Intel possessed monopoly power in the relevant market; Whether Intel acquired or maintained monopoly power within the relevant market through anticompetitive activity; and

b.
c.

d.

Whether Intel's unlawfl conduct has caused legally cognizable
injur to Plaintiff and the Class by enabling Intel to increase,

maintain, or stabilize above competitive levels the prices that Plaintiff and Class members have paid for x86 microprocessors, and if so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages.
13.

These common questions and others predominate over questions, if any,
the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3).

that affect only individual members of

14.

Plaintiffs claims are typical of, and not antagonistic to, the claims ofthe

other Class members because Plaintiff, by advancing his claims, wil also advance the
claims of all members of

the Class and because Intel participated in activity that caused

members ofthe Class to suffer similar injury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).
15.

Plaintiff and his counsel wil fairly and adequately protect the interests of

absent Class members. There are no material conflcts between Plaintiff s claims and
those of absent Class members that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for Plaintiff are experienced in complex class action litigation, including

4

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 5 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 6 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 7 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 8 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 9 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 10 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 11 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 12 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 13 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 14 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 15 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 16 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 17 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 18 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 19 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 20 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 21 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 22 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 23 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 24 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 25 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 26 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 27 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 28 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 29 of 30

Case 1:05-cv-00560-JJF

Document 1

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 30 of 30