INTEL CORP. v. HAMIDI Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A company sued a former employee for trespass to chattels for sending mass, unwanted emails to its employees. The court granted an injunction, finding the electronic messages constituted a trespass even without physically damaging the company’s computer system.
Legal Significance: This decision controversially expanded the tort of trespass to chattels to include electronic communications that do not impair the chattel’s function, finding the requisite harm in the resulting disruption to business operations and loss of employee productivity.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Kourosh Hamidi, a former employee of Plaintiff Intel Corporation, sent mass emails critical of the company to between 8,000 and 35,000 Intel employees on six occasions. The emails were sent to addresses on Intel’s private, internal email system, which was governed by policies limiting its use to company business. Intel demanded that Hamidi cease sending the messages, but he refused and attempted to circumvent Intel’s security measures. Intel did not allege that the emails caused any physical damage to its computer servers or that they impaired the system’s functionality. Instead, Intel claimed it was harmed by the loss of employee productivity due to the distraction of receiving, reading, and deleting the unwanted emails, and by the time its security personnel spent attempting to block them. Intel dropped its claim for damages and sought only a permanent injunction to stop Hamidi from sending unsolicited emails to its system, proceeding on a theory of trespass to chattels.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the act of sending unsolicited mass emails to a company’s private computer system constitute an actionable trespass to chattels sufficient to support an injunction, where the emails cause no physical damage or functional impairment to the system but result in lost employee productivity?
Yes. The court held that Hamidi’s intentional and unauthorized sending of mass Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the act of sending unsolicited mass emails to a company’s private computer system constitute an actionable trespass to chattels sufficient to support an injunction, where the emails cause no physical damage or functional impairment to the system but result in lost employee productivity?
Conclusion
This decision represents a significant, albeit controversial, expansion of the trespass to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo con
Legal Rule
An intentional interference with the possession of personal property constitutes a trespass Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on adapting the common law tort of trespass Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Unsolicited mass emails sent to a private server can constitute a