UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934
Date of Report: March 5, 1998
(Date of earliest event reported)
INTEL CORPORATION
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 0-6217 94-1672743
---------- -------- ------------
(State or other jurisdiction of (Commission (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) file number) Identification
No.)
2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, 95052-8119
California
------------------------------------- ------------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(408) 765-8080
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
<PAGE> 2
ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS
5.1 Attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated
by reference herein is certain information regarding
Legal Proceedings.
ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION
AND EXHIBITS
(c) Exhibits
99.1 Legal Proceedings
<PAGE> 3
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
INTEL CORPORATION (Registrant)
/s/F. Thomas Dunlap, Jr.
-------------------------
Date: March 5, 1998 By: F. Thomas Dunlap, Jr.
Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary
<PAGE> 4
EXHIBIT 99.1
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Intergraph Corporation vs. Intel
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern
Division (CV-97-N-3023-NE)
In November 1997, Intergraph Corporation ("Intergraph") filed
suit in Federal District Court in Alabama generally alleging that
Intel attempted to coerce Intergraph into relinquishing certain
patent rights relating to microprocessor and chipset interaction
in multiprocessor workstations. The suit also alleges that Intel
infringes three Intergraph patents and includes alleged
violations of antitrust laws. The suit seeks injunctive relief
along with unspecified damages. In November 1997, Intel filed
suit against Intergraph in Federal District Court in California
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Intergraph patents are
invalid. Intel also filed an action in the same court alleging
breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets based on
Intergraph's refusal to return Intel confidential information as
contractually required. Although the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit cannot be determined at this time, management, including
internal counsel, does not believe that the ultimate outcome will
have a material adverse effect on Intel's financial position or
overall trends in results of operations.
Cyrix Corporation vs. Intel
U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas (4-97cv164)
Cyrix Corporation brought suit in Federal District Court in Texas
in May 1997, alleging that Intel infringed two patents relating
to microprocessors. Cyrix became a wholly owned subsidiary of
National Semiconductor Corporation ("National") in November 1997.
On February 3, 1998, Intel and National announced that they have
settled the Cyrix lawsuit and extended the term of the existing
patent cross-license agreement between the companies.
Michael W. Scriber vs. Intel
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (CV-1262-AS)
Michael W. Scriber, a former employee of the Company, filed an
action in September 1996 alleging that Intel's products infringe
a patent issued to the plaintiff and that Intel wrongfully
terminated his employment. On January 21, 1998, the court granted
Intel's motions for summary judgment on all claims. The
plaintiff has appealed the decision.
