XML 45 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 27, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies |
Note 13 : | Contingencies
Legal Proceedings We are regularly party to various ongoing claims, litigation, and other proceedings, including those noted in this section. As of September 27, 2025, we have accrued a charge of $1.0 billion related to litigation involving VLSI and a charge of $401 million related to an EC-imposed fine, both as described below. Excluding the VLSI claims described below, management at present believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not materially harm our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or overall trends; however, legal proceedings and related government investigations are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings, excessive verdicts, or other events could occur. Unfavorable resolutions could include substantial monetary damages, fines, or penalties. Certain of these outstanding matters include speculative, substantial, or indeterminate monetary awards. In addition, in matters for which injunctive relief or other conduct remedies are sought, unfavorable resolutions could include an injunction or other order prohibiting us from selling one or more products at all or in particular ways, precluding particular business practices, or requiring other remedies. An unfavorable outcome may result in a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial position, and overall trends. We might also conclude that settling one or more such matters is in the best interests of our stockholders, employees, and customers, and any such settlement could include substantial payments. Unless specifically described below, we have not concluded that settlement of any of the legal proceedings noted in this section is appropriate at this time. European Commission Competition Matter In 2009, the EC found that we had used unfair business practices to persuade customers to buy microprocessors in violation of Article 82 of the EC Treaty (later renumbered Article 102) and Article 54 of the European Economic Area Agreement. In general, the EC found that we violated Article 82 by offering alleged “conditional rebates and payments” that required customers to purchase all or most of their x86 microprocessors from us and by making alleged “payments to prevent sales of specific rival products.” The EC ordered us to end the alleged infringement referred to in its decision and imposed a €1.1 billion fine, which we paid in the third quarter of 2009. We appealed the EC decision to the European Court of Justice in 2014, after the General Court (then called the Court of First Instance) rejected our appeal of the EC decision in its entirety. In September 2017, the Court of Justice sent the case back to the General Court to examine whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition. In January 2022, the General Court annulled the EC's 2009 findings against us regarding rebates, as well as the €1.1 billion fine imposed on Intel, which was returned to us in February 2022. The General Court's January 2022 decision did not annul the EC's 2009 finding that we made payments to prevent sales of specific rival products. In April 2022, the EC appealed the General Court's findings regarding rebates to the Court of Justice. In October 2024, the Court of Justice dismissed the EC's appeal, upholding the judgment of the General Court. In September 2023, the EC imposed a €376 million ($401 million) fine against us based on its 2009 finding that we made payments to prevent sales of specific rival products. We have appealed the EC's decision. We have accrued a charge for the fine and are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses in excess of this amount given the procedural posture and the nature of these proceedings. Litigation Related to Security Vulnerabilities In June 2017, a Google research team notified Intel and other companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities, the first variants of which are now commonly referred to as “Spectre” and “Meltdown,” that affect many types of microprocessors, including our products. As is standard when findings like these are presented, we worked together with other companies in the industry to verify the research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for impacted technologies. In January 2018, information on the security vulnerabilities was publicly reported, before software and firmware updates to address the vulnerabilities were made widely available. Consumer class action lawsuits are pending against us in the U.S. and Canada. The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of purchasers of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by our actions and/or omissions in connection with Spectre, Meltdown, and other variants of this class of security vulnerabilities that have been identified since 2018, and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. In the U.S., class action suits filed in various jurisdictions between 2018 and 2021 were consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, which entered final judgment in favor of Intel in July 2022 based on plaintiffs' failure to plead a viable claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in November 2023, ending the litigation. In November 2023, new plaintiffs filed a consumer class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with respect to a further vulnerability variant disclosed in August 2023 and commonly referred to as “Downfall.” In August 2024, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' entire complaint for failure to plead a viable claim, with leave to amend. In August 2025, the district court dismissed with prejudice the nationwide class claims under California law in plaintiffs' amended complaint, and denied Intel's motion to dismiss subclass claims pleaded in the alternative under the laws of certain other states. In October 2025 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In Canada, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled in one case relating to Spectre and Meltdown pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, and a stay of a second case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec is in effect. Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters. Litigation Related to Segment Reporting and Internal Foundry Model A securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2024 against us and certain officers following the modification of our segment reporting in the first quarter of 2024 to align to our new internal foundry operating model. In August 2024, the court ordered the case consolidated with a second, similar lawsuit, and in October 2024 plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint generally alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about the growth and prospects of the foundry business and seeking monetary damages on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock or purchased call options or sold put options on our common stock from January 25, 2024 through August 1, 2024. In March 2025, the court dismissed plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to plead any false or misleading statements by defendants. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend, but in July 2025 dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaint and entered judgment in defendants' favor, again finding that plaintiffs failed to plead any false or misleading statements. Plaintiffs have appealed. Given the procedural posture of the case, including that the plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from the matter. Stockholder derivative lawsuits have been filed in Delaware state and federal courts alleging that our directors and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties and violated the federal securities laws by making or allowing the statements that are challenged in the securities class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the derivative lawsuits seek to recover damages from the defendants on behalf of Intel. The cases are stayed pending developments in the securities class action lawsuit. Litigation Related to Patent and IP Claims We have had IP infringement lawsuits filed against us, including but not limited to those discussed below. Most involve claims that certain of our products, services, and technologies infringe others' IP rights. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial fines and penalties, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain features, functionalities, products, or services. As a result, we may have to change our business practices, and develop non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenue for us and otherwise harm our business. In addition, certain agreements with our customers require us to indemnify them against certain IP infringement claims, which can increase our costs as a result of defending such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages, accept product returns, or supply our customers with non-infringing products if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. In addition, our customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies, as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenue and adversely affect our business. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel In October 2017, VLSI Technology LLC (VLSI) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that various Intel FPGA and processor products infringe eight patents VLSI acquired from NXP Semiconductors, N.V. (NXP). VLSI sought damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Intel prevailed on all eight patents and the court entered final judgment in April 2024. VLSI appealed the Court's judgment of non-infringement as to one of the eight patents. In April 2019, VLSI filed three infringement suits against us in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing various of our processors of infringement of eight additional patents it had acquired from NXP: ▪The first Texas case went to trial in February 2021, and the jury awarded VLSI $1.5 billion for literal infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of another patent under the doctrine of equivalents. In April 2022, the court entered final judgment, awarding VLSI $2.2 billion in damages and approximately $162 million in pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We appealed the judgment to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, including the court's rejection of Intel's claim to have a license from Fortress Investment Group's acquisition of Finjan. The Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in October 2023. In December 2023, the Federal Circuit reversed the finding of infringement as to the patent for which VLSI was awarded $675 million. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement as to the patent for which VLSI had been awarded $1.5 billion, but vacated the damages award and sent the case back to the trial court for further damages proceedings on that patent. The Federal Circuit also ruled that Intel can advance the defense that it is licensed to VLSI's patents. In December 2021 and January 2022 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) on the claims found to have been infringed in the first Texas case, and in May and June 2023 found all of those claims unpatentable; VLSI has appealed the PTAB's decisions. In April 2024, Intel moved to add the defense that it is licensed to VLSI's patents. The motion remains pending. ▪The second Texas case went to trial in April 2021, and the jury found that we do not infringe the asserted patents. VLSI had sought approximately $3.0 billion for alleged infringement, plus enhanced damages for willful infringement. In September 2024, the court denied VLSI's motion for a new trial. Other post-trial motions remain pending, and the court has not yet entered final judgment. ▪The third Texas case went to trial in November 2022, with VLSI asserting one remaining patent. The jury found the patent valid and infringed, and awarded VLSI approximately $949 million in damages, plus interest and a running royalty. The court has not yet entered final judgment. In February 2023, we filed motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict on various grounds. Further appeals are possible. In April 2024, Intel moved to add the defense that it is licensed to VLSI's patents, and the court granted Intel's motion that same month. In May 2025, the court held a trial on an underlying factual question relating to Intel’s license defense. The jury returned a verdict in Intel's favor. Post-trial briefing is complete, and the court will address the ultimate legal issue of whether Intel obtained a license to the asserted VLSI patent through Intel’s license agreement with Finjan when Fortress Investments acquired Finjan. In May 2019, VLSI filed a case in Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court against Intel, Intel (China) Co., Ltd., Intel Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Intel Products (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. VLSI asserted one patent against certain Intel Core processors. Defendants filed an invalidation petition in October 2019 with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) which held a hearing in September 2021. The Shenzhen court held trial proceedings in July 2021 and September 2023. VLSI sought an injunction as well as RMB 1.3 million in costs and expenses, but no damages. In September 2023, the CNIPA invalidated every claim of the asserted patent. In November 2023, the trial court dismissed VLSI's case. In May 2019, VLSI filed a case in Shanghai Intellectual Property Court against Intel (China) Co., Ltd., Intel Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Intel Products (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. asserting one patent against certain Intel Core processors. The Shanghai court held trial hearings in December 2020 and in May 2022, where VLSI requested expenses (RMB 300 thousand) and an injunction. In October 2023, the Shanghai court issued a decision finding no infringement and dismissing all claims. In November 2023, VLSI appealed the finding of non-infringement to the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court held an evidentiary hearing in October 2024, and a trial in November 2024. In parallel in December 2022, we had filed a petition to invalidate the patent at issue in the Shanghai proceeding. In February 2024, the patent was found not invalid, and Intel appealed the decision in May 2024. After the Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld the validity of the patent in May 2025, we filed a further appeal to the Supreme People’s Court in June 2025. Both VLSI’s appeal of the noninfringement decision and our appeal of the validity decision before the Supreme People’s Court remain pending. In July 2024, Intel filed suit against VLSI in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware requesting the court find Intel is licensed to VLSI's patents. In September 2024, VLSI filed motions requesting that Intel's complaint be dismissed, transferred, or stayed. In December 2024, the Delaware court stayed the case and deferred the pending motions until May 31, 2025. The Delaware court has not taken further action and continues to receive status reports from the parties regarding the Texas court's consideration of Intel's license defense. As of September 27, 2025, we have accrued a charge of approximately $1.0 billion related to the VLSI litigation. We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of losses in excess of recorded amounts. Eire Og Innovations v IBM et. al. Since April 2024, EireOg Innovations Ltd. has filed eleven separate complaints in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas against Intel and AMD customers alleging that various products with Intel and AMD CPUs infringe numerous patents. EireOg seeks compensatory damages, future royalties, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. Intel is indemnifying Acer, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco), Dell Technologies, Inc. (Dell), Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), HP, Inc. (HPI), International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Lenovo Group Ltd. (Lenovo), and Oracle Corporation (Oracle) in connection with Intel CPUs accused of infringing four patents. Cisco and IBM filed their answers in June 2024. In these cases, a Markman hearing was scheduled for August 2025, and trial is scheduled for February 2026. Dell and Oracle filed their answers in June and September 2024, respectively. The Markman hearing in those matters was held in May 2025, and trial is scheduled for June 2026. Lenovo filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in July 2024, which was denied, and it subsequently filed an answer in October 2024. HPE filed its answer in July 2024. Trial in the Lenovo and HPE matters is scheduled for March 2026. AWS moved to dismiss the complaint in June 2025, and EireOg responded with an amended complaint. AWS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in July 2025, which was denied, and it subsequently filed an answer in October 2025. The Markman hearing in the AWS matter is scheduled for December 2025, and trial is scheduled for December 2026. In September 2025, EireOg filed joint motions to dismiss the claims against Acer and HPI without prejudice. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters. Media Content Protection v Intel I n September 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC (collectively, Philips) filed against Intel and customers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the International Trade Commission (ITC). Philips alleged that certain Intel digital video-capable integrated circuits and associated firmware infringed two of its patents, including integrated circuits and associated firmware incorporated into products sold by Dell., HPI, Lenovo, and LG Electronics Inc. In March 2022, the ITC issued a final determination concluding that Philips had not proven a violation. Philips did not appeal the ITC’s decision, and a stay of the Delaware cases was lifted. Philips then sold the asserted patents to Media Content Protection (MCP) in July 2024, and MCP substituted in as the plaintiff. Trial is set for January 2026. MCP seeks $66 million to $398 million in damages for royalties between the 2020 case filing and the 2023 patent expiration date. Given the procedural posture and the nature of this case, including that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration