Intel has appealed to the European Court of First Instance against its €1bn fine in May for alleged uncompetitive practices.
The Court of First Instance has already been involved in the EC's case against Intel when the company asked for a delay to proceedings so it could see more documents in order to defend itself properly.
The Court subsequently ruled that Intel did not need to see the documents to defend itself properly.
The Court is now expected to take a year or so to consider Intel's appeal, which is thought to be based on the fact that the EC, in imposing its fine, ignored evidence or misinterpreted evidence.
There is one court of appeal from the Court of First Instance and that is the European Court of Justice. However such an appeal can only be on the grounds that the lower court misunderstood, misinterpreted or misapplied the law.
See also: Mannerisms -
Bridge Of DiesSign up for the weekly Mannerisms blog newsletter, delivered on Tuesdays.
An Intel spokesman said that the grounds of its appeal would be that the EC misinterpreted and/or ignored evidence.
The key EC allegation made against Intel was that Intel: 'Excluded its competitor in two ways: through illegal loyalty rebates, by paying manufacturers and retailers to restrict the commercialisation of competitors' products.'
The EC recognises that: 'Not all rebates are a competition problem. But the Intel rebates in this case were a problem because of the conditions that Intel attached to its rebates.'
Intel denied, at the time of the fine, that there were any conditions attached to the rebates. "We have never conditioned a rebate on an agreement not to buy from AMD," said Bruce Sewell Intel's general counsel.
Another major allegation against Intel was that it paid manufacturers to delay AMD product launches. Asked if Intel had done this, Sewell responded: "I can absolutely and categorically deny it, and I do deny it."
The EC stated: 'The Commission has specific, documented examples, of Intel paying other manufacturers to, for example, delay the launch of an AMD-based PC by six months." Sewell's response to that was: "I am not aware of any such document."
The EC also alleged: 'The Commission Decision contains evidence that Intel went to great lengths to cover-up many of its anti-competitive actions,' to which Sewell responded: "I know of no instance when Intel has tried to hide something."
At the time of the fine the EC stated: "The Commission had ordered Intel to cease the illegal practices immediately", to which Sewell l responded: "I can't say what it is that we're being told not to do."