· 6/21/2004

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Citations

542 U.S. 241
124 S. Ct. 2466
159 L. Ed. 2d 355
2004 U.S. LEXIS 4570
71 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1001
64 Fed. R. Serv. 742
58 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 696
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 399
72 U.S.L.W. 4528

About this case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the United States Supreme Court case. For the 2005 lawsuit, see Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.

2004 United States Supreme Court case

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 28 U.S.C. § 1782 , which authorizes United States district courts to enforce discovery requests made in connection with litigation being conducted in foreign tribunals. Prior to Intel, there had been substantial disagreement as to the availability of Section 1782 discovery .

The Intel case originated from Advanced Micro Devices ' antitrust claims against Intel in Europe. AMD filed a complaint against Intel in the European Union 's antitrust enforcement agency (the Directorate-General for Competition ), and then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. for discovery of certain Intel documents in order to further their complaint.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel_Corp._v._Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) is available from: Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)

PDFs

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel_Corp._v._Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: PDFs")
]

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“The term ‘tribunal’ includes investigating magistrates, administrative and arbitral tribunals, and quasi-judicial agencies, as well as conventional civil, commercial, criminal, and administrative courts.’ ” (alterations omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer, O'Connor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.