## Facts

- Intel and National Semiconductor entered a 1976 patent cross-license granting each party a royalty-free license under the other’s defined “patents” and “patent applications.”
- The agreement limited covered patents to those National “owns or controls” or has the right to license; similar definitions applied to “National patent applications.”
- In 1987, National acquired Fairchild Semiconductor, while Intergraph separately purchased Fairchild’s Advanced Processor Division, including the Clipper technology and pending Clipper patent applications.
- The Clipper applications were transferred directly from Fairchild to Intergraph and did not pass through National’s ownership or control.
- Intergraph later obtained issued Clipper patents and sued Intel for infringement.
- Intel asserted a license defense, claiming the Clipper patents fell within the scope of the 1976 Intel–National cross-license.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Intel on the infringement claims based on the asserted license.
- In an earlier appeal in the same litigation, the Federal Circuit rejected Intergraph’s antitrust theory based on Intel’s withholding of proprietary information and product samples after Intergraph asserted its patents.
- On remand, the district court entered a Rule 54(b) judgment holding the antitrust issues barred by law of the case.

## Issues

1. Whether Intel’s 1976 cross-license from National covered the Clipper patents that were assigned directly from Fairchild to Intergraph and never owned or controlled by National.
2. Whether the prior appellate ruling on antitrust liability barred Intergraph from relitigating antitrust claims under the law-of-the-case doctrine, supporting a Rule 54(b) judgment.

## Decision

- Reversed the summary judgment that Intel was licensed under the Clipper patents and remanded for further proceedings on infringement and related claims.
- Held the Clipper patent applications and resulting patents were not “National patent applications” or “National patents” because National neither owned nor controlled them and lacked the right to grant the relevant licenses.
- Affirmed the Rule 54(b) judgment barring renewed antitrust claims because the earlier appellate decision resolved the antitrust liability and injury issues as law of the case.

## Legal Principles

- Patent cross-licenses limited by “ownership or control” do not extend to patents that never became owned or controlled by the licensor or otherwise subject to the licensor’s right to grant the licensed scope.
- Contract interpretation of a patent license is anchored in the agreement’s defined terms; a party asserting a license defense must show the asserted patents fall within those definitions on undisputed facts to prevail on summary judgment.
- Where an agreement requires express consent to include a subsidiary’s patents within a cross-license, the absence of such consent defeats an attempt to sweep those patents into the license by implication.
- Law of the case binds later stages of the same litigation to issues decided in an earlier appellate decision absent exceptional reasons; rejected antitrust theories cannot be revived on remand.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held Intel’s National cross-license did not cover Intergraph’s Clipper patents because National never owned, controlled, or had the right to license them, but it also enforced law of the case to prevent Intergraph from relitigating antitrust claims previously resolved against it.


Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 241 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001)