In mid July, the European Commission filed additional antitrust charges against the Santa Clara, California-based global leading chip maker, Intel. Back then, the company was accused of anti-competitive behavior, a charge with which the chip maker was already familiar, as this wasn't the first time that the European Commission was accusing Intel of such practices. In addition to the antitrust charges, the European Commission (EC) also launched a second investigation into the company's alleged improprieties, and informed the chip giant that its SSO (Supplementary Statement of Objections) backed AMD's case.

 

Since the EC first filed the charges against the chip maker, there have been a number of developments in the case, with the most recent one seeing Intel refusing to file certain documents within a certain deadline. In a turn of events, the company also went to court asking for additional filing time, only to have the request denied by the European Commission on the grounds that no such delay was necessary. In addition, Intel filed a suit last month, in an attempt to nullify the European Commission's previous decisions.

 

According to the Official Journal of the European Union, Intel is contesting one of the Court's decisions, saying that it was denied access to certain paperwork delivered by AMD as evidence in the case. "The contested decisions concern the refusal on the part of the Commission to procure, particularly from the complainant in the case, certain documentary evidence that the applicant claims to be directly relevant to the allegations made by the Commission in the SSO. The Hearing Officer has also rejected Intel's submission that it cannot respond properly to the SSO without being provided with those documents, and has refused to further extend the deadline for Intel to file its reply to the SSO."

 

Intel is now asking for three things, according to the filing, namely that the court annul certain decisions made by the EC, order the Commission to pay Intel's costs, and extend the deadline to reply to the SSO by another 30 days, after the company is granted access to the "relevant documents of the complainant."