Contingencies |
3 Months Ended | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar. 30, 2024 | |||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |||||||||||||
| Contingencies |
Legal Proceedings
We are regularly party to various ongoing claims, litigation, and other proceedings, including those noted in this section. We have accrued a charge of $1.0 billion related to litigation involving VLSI and a charge of $401 million related to an EC-imposed fine, both as described below. Excluding the VLSI claims, management at present believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not materially harm our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or overall trends; however, legal proceedings and related government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings, excessive verdicts, or other events could occur. Unfavorable resolutions could include substantial monetary damages, fines, or penalties. Certain of these outstanding matters include speculative, substantial, or indeterminate monetary awards. In addition, in matters for which injunctive relief or other conduct remedies are sought, unfavorable resolutions could include an injunction or other order prohibiting us from selling one or more products at all or in particular ways, precluding particular business practices, or requiring other remedies. An unfavorable outcome may result in a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. We might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of our stockholders, employees, and customers, and any such settlement could include substantial payments. Unless specifically described below, we have not concluded that settlement of any of the legal proceedings noted in this section is appropriate at this time.
European Commission Competition Matter
In 2009, the EC found that we had used unfair business practices to persuade customers to buy microprocessors in violation of Article 82 of the EC Treaty (later renumbered Article 102) and Article 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement. In general, the EC found that we violated Article 82 by offering alleged “conditional rebates and payments” that required customers to purchase all or most of their x86 microprocessors from us and by making alleged “payments to prevent sales of specific rival products.” The EC ordered us to end the alleged infringement referred to in its decision and imposed a €1.1 billion fine, which we paid in the third quarter of 2009.
We appealed the EC decision to the European Court of Justice in 2014, after the General Court (then called the Court of First Instance) rejected our appeal of the EC decision in its entirety. In September 2017, the Court of Justice sent the case back to the General Court to examine whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition. In January 2022, the General Court annulled the EC’s 2009 findings against us regarding rebates, as well as the €1.1 billion fine imposed on Intel, which was returned to us in February 2022. The General Court’s January 2022 decision did not annul the EC’s 2009 finding that we made payments to prevent sales of specific rival products.
In April 2022 the EC appealed the General Court’s decision to the Court of Justice. In addition, in September 2023 the EC imposed a €376 million ($401 million) fine against us based on its finding that we made payments to prevent sales of specific rival products. We have appealed the EC’s decision. We have accrued a charge for the fine and are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses in excess of this amount given the procedural posture and the nature of these proceedings.
In a related matter, in April 2022 we filed applications with the General Court seeking an order requiring the EC to pay us approximately €593 million in default interest on the original €1.1 billion fine that was held by the EC for 12 years, which applications have been stayed pending the EC’s appeal of the General Court’s January 2022 decision.
Litigation Related to Security Vulnerabilities
In June 2017, a Google research team notified Intel and other companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities, the first variants of which are now commonly referred to as “Spectre” and “Meltdown,” that affect many types of microprocessors, including our products. As is standard when findings like these are presented, we worked together with other companies in the industry to verify the research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for impacted technologies. In January 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address the vulnerabilities were made widely available.
As of April 24, 2024, consumer class action lawsuits against us were pending in the US and Canada. The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of purchasers of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by our actions and/or omissions in connection with Spectre, Meltdown, and other variants of this class of security vulnerabilities that have been identified since 2018, and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. In the US, class action suits filed in various jurisdictions between 2018 and 2021 were consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in the US District Court for the District of Oregon, which entered final judgment in favor of Intel in July 2022 based on plaintiffs’ failure to plead a viable claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in November 2023, ending the litigation. In November 2023, new plaintiffs filed a consumer class action complaint in the US District Court for the Northern District of California with respect to a further vulnerability variant disclosed in August 2023 and commonly referred to as “Downfall.” We moved to dismiss that complaint in January 2024. In Canada, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled in one case relating to Spectre and Meltdown pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, and a stay of a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec is in effect. In a class action relating to Spectre and Meltdown previously pending in Argentina, plaintiffs’ appeal of a May 2023 order dismissing their complaint for lack of standing was denied in February 2024, ending the lawsuit. Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters.
Litigation Related to 7nm Product Delay Announcement
Multiple securities class action lawsuits were filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against us and certain officers following our July 2020 announcement of 7nm product delays. The court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed lead plaintiffs in October 2020, and in January 2021 plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs purport to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock from October 25, 2019 through October 23, 2020, and they generally allege that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about the timeline for 7nm products. In March 2023, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and in April 2023 entered judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, and on April 19, 2024 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment; the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is subject to appeal. Given the procedural posture and the nature of the case, including that it is in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from the matter. In July 2021, we introduced a new process node naming structure, and the 7nm process is now called Intel 4.
Litigation Related to Patent and IP Claims
We have had IP infringement lawsuits filed against us, including but not limited to those discussed below. Most involve claims that certain of our products, services, and technologies infringe others' IP rights. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial fines and penalties, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain features, functionalities, products, or services. As a result, we may have to change our business practices, and develop non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenue for us and otherwise harm our business. In addition, certain agreements with our customers require us to indemnify them against certain IP infringement claims, which can increase our costs as a result of defending such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages, accept product returns, or supply our customers with non-infringing products if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. In addition, our customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies, as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenue and adversely affect our business.
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel
In October 2017, VLSI Technology LLC (VLSI) filed a complaint against us in the US District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that various Intel FPGA and processor products infringe eight patents VLSI acquired from NXP Semiconductors, N.V. (NXP). Intel prevailed on all eight patents and the court entered final judgment in April 2024. Further appeals are possible. In April 2019, VLSI filed three infringement suits against us in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing various of our processors of infringement of eight additional patents it had acquired from NXP:
▪The first Texas case went to trial in February 2021, and the jury awarded VLSI $1.5 billion for literal infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of another patent under the doctrine of equivalents. In April 2022, the court entered final judgment, awarding VLSI $2.1 billion in damages and approximately $162.3 million in pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We appealed the judgment to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, including the court’s rejection of Intel’s claim to have a license from Fortress Investment Group’s acquisition of Finjan. The Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in October 2023. In December 2023, the Federal Circuit reversed the finding of infringement as to the patent for which VLSI was awarded $675 million. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement as to the patent for which VLSI had been awarded $1.5 billion, but vacated the damages award and sent the case back to the trial court for further damages proceedings on that patent. The Federal Circuit also ruled that Intel can advance the defense that it is licensed to VLSI’s patents. In December 2021 and January 2022 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) on the claims found to have been infringed in the first Texas case, and in May and June 2023 found all of those claims unpatentable; VLSI has appealed the PTAB’s decision. In March 2024, Intel filed a motion to stay the case pending appeals of the IPRs. In April 2024, Intel moved to add the defense that it is licensed to VLSI’s patents.
▪The second Texas case went to trial in April 2021, and the jury found that we do not infringe the asserted patents. VLSI had sought approximately $3.0 billion for alleged infringement, plus enhanced damages for willful infringement. The court has not yet entered final judgment.
▪The third Texas case went to trial in November 2022, with VLSI asserting one remaining patent. The jury found the patent valid and infringed, and awarded VLSI approximately $949 million in damages, plus interest and a running royalty. The court has not yet entered final judgment. In February 2023, we filed motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict on various grounds. Further appeals are possible. In April 2024, Intel moved to add the defense that it is licensed to VLSI’s patents.
In May 2019, VLSI filed a case in Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court against Intel, Intel (China) Co., Ltd., Intel Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Intel Products (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. VLSI asserted one patent against certain Intel Core processors. Defendants filed an invalidation petition in October 2019 with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) which held a hearing in September 2021. The Shenzhen court held trial proceedings in July 2021, and September 2023. VLSI sought an injunction as well as RMB 1.3 million in costs and expenses, but no damages. In September 2023, the CNIPA invalidated every claim of the asserted patent. In November 2023, the trial court dismissed VLSI’s case.
In May 2019, VLSI filed a case in Shanghai Intellectual Property Court against Intel (China) Co., Ltd., Intel Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Intel Products (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. asserting one patent against certain Intel core processors. The court held a trial hearing in December 2020, where VLSI requested expenses (RMB 300 thousand) and an injunction. In December 2022, we filed a petition to invalidate the patent at issue. The court held a second trial hearing in May 2022, and in October 2023, issued a decision finding no infringement and dismissing all claims. In November 2023, VLSI appealed the finding of non-infringement.
As of March 30, 2024, we have accrued a charge of approximately $1.0 billion related to the VLSI litigation. While we dispute VLSI’s claims and intend to vigorously defend against them, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of losses in excess of recorded amounts given recent developments and future proceedings.
R2 Semiconductor Patent Litigation
In November 2022, R2 Semiconductor, Inc. (R2) filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Justice in the UK against Intel Corporation (UK) Limited and Intel Corporation, and a lawsuit in the Dusseldorf Regional Court in Germany against Intel Deutschland GmbH and certain Intel customers. R2 asserts one European patent is infringed by Intel’s Ice Lake, Tiger Lake, Alder Lake and Ice Lake Server (Xeon) processors (the accused products), and customer servers and laptops that contain those processors. R2 seeks an injunction in both actions prohibiting the sale and requiring the recall of the alleged infringing products. Intel is indemnifying its customers in the German lawsuit.
Intel disputes R2’s claims and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. In December 2022, Intel responded in the UK action that the asserted patent is not infringed and that the patent is invalid. In April 2023, defendants filed statements of defense in the German action that the asserted patent is not infringed and that an injunction would be a disproportionate remedy. In May 2023, defendants also filed a nullity action in the German Federal Patent Court on the ground that the asserted patent is invalid.
In December 2023, the German Federal Patent Court issued a preliminary opinion finding R2’s patent valid. The German Federal Patent Court’s final decision on invalidity is expected in October 2024. In December 2023, the court in Dusseldorf held a trial on the issue of infringement. In February 2024, the court found Intel’s processors infringe and issued an injunction and recall order against Intel and its customers. R2 has not yet sought to enforce the order. Intel has appealed the decision. In April 2024, Intel also filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court seeking a stay and a reversal of the finding of infringement and filed additional evidence with the appeals court to demonstrate that it does not infringe R2’s patent.
In March 2024, Intel filed an action in Milan, Italy seeking an order that it does not infringe R2’s patent.
In April 2024, R2 filed an action against Intel and its customers Dell, HP, and HPE for patent infringement in Paris, France. Intel and its customers have filed a nullity action against the patent in France.
Trial in the UK matter is scheduled for April 2024.
We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these lawsuits and the injunction and order of the Dusseldorf Regional Court due to the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved and that uncertainty exists as to, among other things: (i) whether and, if so, at what point in time the order in Germany may take effect, including as a result of a potential stay; (ii) whether and, if so, at what point we may be successful in appealing the decisions in Germany as to infringement and validity, (iii) the extent to which we and our customers are able to mitigate the impact of the injunction of the Dusseldorf Regional Court, (iv) the costs of recalling products if the recall order of the Dusseldorf Regional Court is enforced, (v) the extent to which R2 may be awarded damages, and (vi) the extent to which we may agree to compensate our customers for losses in connection with the injunction and recall and any potential damage award.
|
||||||||||||