Abstract
This Article will first briefly review the events leading up to the Intel decision. It will then explain the procedure of making a § 1782 request and address the Intel decision’s overall impact on this process. The discussion will primarily focus on the Court’s four majot holdings: (1) § 1782 assistance is not limited to “pending” or “imminent” adjudicative proceedings; (2) the European Commission (EC) acts as a “foreign tribunal;” (3) as a complainant in the EC, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) is an ‘interested person;” and (4) § 1782 does not contain a foreign discoverability requirement. In addition to discussing the Court’s rulings, this Article will also analyze whether the decision is consistent with congressional intent and prior case law. Finally, this Article will examine the district court’s decision on remand, specifically focusing on whether it followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidelines when it exercised its discretionary authority.
Recommended Citation
Patel, Anand Suryakant
(2006)
"International Judicial Assistance: An Analysis of Intel v. AMD and Its Affect on § 1782 Discovery Assistance,"
Florida Journal of International Law: Vol. 18:
Iss.
1, Article 5.
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/fjil/vol18/iss1/5