Intergraph v. Intel Corporation

National Semiconductor Company (National) and Intel Corporation (Intel) (defendant) had a cross-license agreement that granted Intel nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide licenses under “National Patents” and “National Patent Applications,” as those terms were defined. National’s patents were defined to include all patents that it owned or controlled during the term of the agreement, and National’s patent applications were defined to include any applications that, when issued, would become National’s patents. In 1987, National sought to purchase Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (Fairchild). Fairchild had an advanced-processor division that held the rights to certain microprocessor technology (Clipper technology). Clipper technology was the subject of pending patent applications (Clipper patent applications). Intergraph Corporation (Intergraph) (plaintiff) was a manufacturer of computer-graphics workstations that used Clipper technology. Upon learning that Fairchild would be sold to National, Intergraph arranged to purchase the advanced-processor division, including the division’s assets and Clipper patent applications, concurrently with National’s purchase of the rest of Fairchild. The October 8, 1987, closing transaction consisted of various procedural steps, at the end of which National acquired Fairchild and Intergraph acquired the assets of the advanced-processor division. Thereafter, patents were issued as to the Clipper patent applications (the Clipper patents). Intergraph sued Intel for patent infringement of the Clipper patents. Intel responded that it had a license based on its cross-license agreement with National, which was effective at all relevant times. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to Intel. Intergraph appealed.