614 F.Supp.3d 783
D. Or.2022Background
- MDL: Nationwide putative class action against Intel alleging long‑standing hardware design defects in CPUs ("Unauthorized Access" and "Incomplete Undo") that enabled side‑channel exploits (e.g., Spectre, Meltdown) and that Intel knew but failed to fix.
- Plaintiffs allege Intel learned of Spectre/Meltdown in mid‑2017, delayed disclosure/embargos (including over the 2017 holiday selling season), continued selling and marketing premium CPUs, and issued only performance‑harming software patches.
- Procedural history: Intel filed multiple motions to dismiss. The court previously dismissed many claims but in Intel III allowed limited claims by seven named plaintiffs based on Intel conduct on/after Sept. 1, 2017 (nationwide UCL unfair prong and unjust enrichment, plus certain state claims).
- Intel moved for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) (or alternatively §1292(b) certification), submitting exhibits and arguing the post‑2017 theory was not the case’s focus and that the court’s Intel III ruling rested on flawed or abandoned theories.
- The court granted reconsideration, rejected plaintiffs’ clarified theory (relying only on information asymmetry rather than alleged embargo lengthening), held that asymmetry alone cannot support the UCL unfair prong or unjust enrichment, found the post‑2017 unfair UCL claim overlaps the previously dismissed fraud claim, and dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice; judgment to be entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration under Rule 54(b) | Plaintiffs: post‑2017 allegations were always part of the case; reconsideration unnecessary. | Intel: court should revisit Intel III because post‑2017 theory was not the parties’ focus earlier and Intel could not previously fully brief these issues. | Court granted reconsideration. |
| Embargo manipulation as basis for UCL unfair claim | Plaintiffs: Intel manipulated/delayed embargos (including past 2017 holidays) to maximize sales and suppressed test results. | Intel: allegations speculative; plaintiffs disavowed delay theory and now rely only on ordinary information asymmetry. | Court found plaintiffs abandoned the embargo‑delay theory; mere information asymmetry is insufficient to state an unfair UCL claim. |
| Whether the post‑2017 unfair UCL claim duplicates dismissed fraud‑based UCL claim | Plaintiffs: post‑2017 conduct is a distinct unfair practice (marketing/sales during embargo; false post‑disclosure statements). | Intel: allegedly the same misrepresentations/omissions already dismissed as fraud; unfair claim therefore coextensive and barred. | Court held the unfair claim overlaps the dismissed fraud claim and dismissed the unfair prong with prejudice. |
| Unjust enrichment / quasi‑contract based on purchases during embargo | Plaintiffs: Intel was unjustly enriched by selling CPUs while withholding material vulnerability info. | Intel: this is the ordinary embargo/information asymmetry scenario and insufficient to support unjust enrichment. | Court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (standards for incorporation by reference and limits on judicial notice at pleading stage)
- ICTSI Oregon, Inc. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 22 F.4th 1125 (9th Cir. 2022) (standards for §1292(b) interlocutory appeal certification)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1978) (policy favoring postponement of appellate review absent exceptional circumstances)
- U.S. Tobacco Coop. Inc. v. Big S. Wholesale of Virginia, LLC, 899 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2018) (standards for reconsideration of interlocutory orders)
- In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1982) (definition of a controlling question of law and §1292(b) standards)
- Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 634 (Ct. App. 2006) (California authority discussing limits on non‑fraud UCL claims)
- Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (holding that unfair prong of UCL cannot survive where it entirely overlaps fraud prong)