X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL: Peter N. Detkin, Intel Corp. TITLE: Vice president, legal, and assistant general counsel AGE: 40 ORGANIZATION: Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel Corp. is the world’s largest chipmaker with offices in 60 countries, 87,000 employees and $33.7 billion in revenues in 2000. Its computer chips power more than 80 percent of the world’s personal computers. DEPARTMENT: In overseeing litigation at Intel, Detkin has five litigation attorneys on staff, including the director of patents and the director of competition policy, who handle antitrust litigation. The others work on litigation involving intellectual property rights, contracts and class action lawsuits. In addition, Detkin oversees about 30 other in-house attorneys. Intel has a total of 80 lawyers on staff. CHIEF RESPONSIBILITIES: Detkin’s primary responsibility is Intel’s high-profile litigation, which includes eight to 10 major cases, most of them intellectual property rights disputes over patents, trade secrets and trademarks. One is a multibillion-dollar lawsuit brought by a former customer, Alabama-based Intergraph Corp., accusing Intel of patent infringement, antitrust violations and breach of contract. Intel denies the charges, some of which relate to its decision to stop giving Intergraph advance information about upcoming Intel products after Intergraph had threatened to sue Intel for patent infringement. Intel officials say that the company’s action was legal. The information had helped Intergraph make its computers compatible with the latest Intel chips. On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Intel does not have a license for the five patents in question and told the lower court to decide on the validity of the patents and whether Intel infringed on them. Intel may appeal the decision. Detkin says that he advised Intel’s litigation team and keeps company executives updated on the litigation. FTC SETTLEMENT: The Intergraph litigation was also the main basis for a Federal Trade Commission administrative action that accused Intel of using monopoly power to retaliate against customers who had tried to enforce their patent claims. Although Intel denied the charges, the company agreed to a settlement with the FTC in March 1999, avoiding a major antitrust trial. Under the consent decree, Intel must continue giving advance information to customers that sue it for patent infringement unless the customer is seeking an injunction to block the sale of Intel products. Detkin says that he provided guidance to the in-house attorney who handled both the litigation and the FTC’s three-year investigation of Intel. He was much more involved in the settlement talks, acting as lead negotiator for Intel. He spent the last 10 days of the negotiations in Washington, D.C., working on the settlement agreement. SECURITIES LITIGATION: Intel also usually has one major securities lawsuit going on because it makes a lot of acquisitions and “lawyers on behalf of shareholders of an acquired company might allege we didn’t pay enough” for it, Detkin says. Shareholders of DSP Communications Inc., a firm that Intel bought in 1999 for $1.6 billion, are suing Intel, claiming that Intel paid DSP officers more for their shares than public shareholders got. Intel says the case is “meritless,” adding that Intel paid $15 million in bonuses to three DSP officers to stay in their jobs until the merger was over, not to compete against the company once they left and as severance pay. The U.S. district court in San Francisco has set a July 2002 trial date. BROADCOM: Last year, Intel filed two lawsuits against another California-based high-tech company, Broadcom Corp., claiming that it had infringed on seven patents which Intel says are used in almost all of Broadcom’s product lines. The cases are key to Intel’s primary legal strategy of protecting its intellectual property, which Detkin calls “the lifeblood of the company.” The International Trade Commission plans to hear one of the cases in April. The other will be heard by a Delaware federal district court in October. Intel settled a third lawsuit against Broadcom last November. The suit, which was filed in a California state court, had accused Broadcom of hiring Intel employees to learn Intel trade secrets. The terms of the settlement are confidential. Detkin says he managed the litigation team that negotiated the settlement for Intel but was not personally involved in the talks. CORPORATE LITIGATION TRENDS: “I do see an increase in the amount of patent litigation filed by noncompetitors,” such as people who acquire patent licenses in bankruptcy court and then seek to enforce them, Detkin says. Intel has been a major target of these lawsuits. “In 1998, we had about $7 billion in claims made against us by people who had never made a semiconductor device in their lives,” he explains. Two of the three lawsuits filed against Intel were dismissed. The other one, which was brought by the Lemelson Foundation, is still pending. Some 20 high-tech companies are named as defendants in Lemelson Foundation v. Intel Corp., which seeks billions of dollars from the defendants for allegedly infringing on a patent related to bar-code scanning technology. A federal court in Phoenix has not yet set a hearing date. OUTSIDE COUNSEL: Detkin almost always uses outside counsel to handle litigation. “We are one of the largest consumers at, at least, three or four law firms,” he says. Here is a sampling of firms that he turns to for intellectual property litigation: Hale and Dorr in Boston; Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in San Francisco; Irell & Manella in Century City, Calif.; and the New York firms Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Simpson Thacher also works on Intel’s commercial litigation. Fish & Richardson is representing Intel in the two Broadcom cases. Howrey Simon Arnold & White in Washington, D.C., and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles worked on both the FTC and the Intergraph litigation. Birmingham, Ala.-based Bradley, Arant, Rose & White also represents Intel in the case. Washington-based Arnold & Porter helped with Intel’s settlement with the FTC. Among the firm’s lawyers who helped facilitate the negotiations was former White House Counsel Jack Quinn. Phoenix-based Brown & Bain and Kenyon & Kenyon in New York are representing Intel in the Lemelson Foundation case. Gibson Dunn is also handling the DSP Communications shareholder litigation PET PEEVE: Detkin likes outside counsel who aren’t afraid to tell it like it is. He gets annoyed if an outside lawyer “thinks because I’m a client they should say yes to everything I say.” “Not everything I say is brilliant,” he says. “Don’t tell me what I want to hear. Tell me what I have to hear.” Also, he says, “Be honest with me about what your strengths and weaknesses are. I appreciate it when a firm tells me they just don’t have the resources to handle a particular case.” ROUTE TO THE TOP: Detkin earned his undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and his law degree at the University of Pennsylvania. He finished law school in 1985 and became an associate at Fish & Neave, a New York patent litigation firm. The New York native went to Silicon Valley in 1987 to join Palo Alto, Calif.’s Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. He was the firm’s first patent attorney and specialized in intellectual property rights litigation. He made partner in 1991 and hadn’t considered leaving until he got a call from a headhunter in 1994. He told her that the only jobs he might consider were head of litigation for Intel or Hewlett Packard. “She said, ‘That’s the job,’ ” he recalls. He had spent much of his time at Wilson Sonsini litigating against Intel. Intel hired him to be its first director of litigation in August 1994. FAMILY: Detkin recently married Michelle Detkin, another Intel attorney, who works on corporate financing matters. He has two children from a previous marriage, Laurel, 10, and Jacob, 7. LAST BOOK READ: “Ravelstein,” by Saul Bellow.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.