In 1997, the Huntsville, Ala, computer maker sued Intel over alleged patent infringement, maintaining that during a patent dispute, Intel cut off a vital flow of information about advanced microprocessors that Intergraph needed for survival as a computer-workstation maker.

The US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama earlier ruled that Intel was a monopolist and that Intergraph could probably show Intel had violated antitrust laws, which warranted the court's granting the injunction. U.S. District Court Judge Edwin Nelson had ordered Intel to continue supplying product information to Intergraph during the litigation.In August, Intergraph filed a motion accusing Intel of failing to live up to that injunction. Judge Nelson ruled that Intel hadn't violated his order Last month, the judge threw outIntergraph's patent-infringement charges, reconsidering an earlier opinion but leaving the two companies to square off over additional antitrust charges.

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Intel was well within its rights to withdraw support, noting that antitrust laws don't convert all harsh commercial actions into antitrust violations. A trial to hear Intergraph's charges that Intel improperly used its microprocessor monopoly to force Intergraph to give up its intellectual property is set for June.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said the Santa Clara, California, company was gratified by the ruling. He said Intel has always believed that Intergraph's charges were without merit and said the court's ruling casts doubt on some of the theories Intergraph used to support its case.

Intergraph had argued that it couldn't survive in its highly competitive graphics-workstation business without the services and benefits it gets from Intel and that Intel violated antitrust laws bywithholding this support in retaliation for Intergraph's patent suit.

On Friday, Intergraph said it doesn't expect its ongoing hardware business will be affected by the court ruling.