According to the court report by Lawtel, Intel and Via each had
a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence of each other's
technology, but Via only had the right to use Intel's patents for
certain products. Via was not licensed to use Intel’s Pentium 4
patents because it refused the terms offered by Intel. Intel sued
Via for alleged infringement.
Via argued that it had not infringed Intel's patents in making
P4 compatible products, even though not licensed to use them, on
the grounds that, contrary to European competition laws:
- Intel's infringement claim was an unlawful attempt to compel
Via to enter into an unfavourable licence agreement for Pentium 4,
containing cross-licences for Via's technology and other
restrictions; and
- Intel's refusal to grant a patent licence on reasonable lawful
terms or at all was an abuse of its dominant position.
Via failed because its decision to refuse the licence terms that
Intel offered would not force Via out of the market. The court
found that Via “was not desperate for business.” It would merely
mean that Via “was unable to manufacture chipsets for P4 chips and
the economic effect on [Via] would not be fatal.”
On a question of cross-licensing, Via’s arguments were dismissed
as being “so vague and imprecise as to amount to nothing more than
pure unparticularised assertion.“
The court added that Intel owned its patents and was entitled to
license them however it wished and it took a commercial decision to
do so in respect only of chipsets for its current chips.
The court said that a refusal to grant a licence of intellectual
property rights was not an abuse in itself, unless exceptional
circumstances were present. Exceptional circumstances would include
"complete elimination of all competition within the relevant
market" but Via could not argue that that would apply in this case.
Intel was not the only player in the market and there were other
competitors of Via within the market.
The court concluded that:
“To grant [Via] the relief sought would
effectively be to create a new form of compulsory licensing and
there was no authority to justify this.”
