HP 2009 Annual Report Download - page 155

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 18: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
• A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification,
restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
attorneys’ fees. A class certification hearing is scheduled for April 23, 2010.
• Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in
Canada, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in
April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the
plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. A class authorization hearing for one
of the cases pending in Quebec was tentatively scheduled for December 10, 2009; that hearing
has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court.
Baggett v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6, 2007 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California alleging that HP employs a technology in its
LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus preventing customers
from using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge. The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to
disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the
printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP
LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 29, 2009, the court granted HP’s motion for summary
judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification as moot. On
November 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named plaintiff. On November 17, 2009,
plaintiff filed an appeal of the court’s summary judgment ruling with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rich v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on May 22, 2006 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet
printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images
and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only
damages class. A class certification hearing is scheduled for February 5, 2010.
On December 27, 2001, Cornell University and the Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. filed a
complaint, amended on September 6, 2002, against HP in United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York alleging that HP’s PA-RISC 8000 family of microprocessors, and servers
and workstations incorporating those processors, infringe a patent assigned to Cornell Research
Foundation, Inc. that describes a way of executing microprocessor instructions. The complaint sought
declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The patent at issue in this litigation, United
States Patent No. 4,807,115, expired on February 21, 2006. Therefore, the plaintiffs are no longer
entitled to seek injunctive relief against HP. This matter was tried between May 19 and May 30, 2008,
and, on May 30, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $184 million.
On March 30, 2009, the trial court issued four post-trial decisions. The court denied several of HP’s
post-trial motions, but granted HP’s motion to reduce the damages award. The court reduced the
award to approximately $53 million and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in that
amount. On April 10, 2009, HP filed a notice that it will appeal the judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 15, 2009, the court awarded approximately
$17 million in pre-judgment interest and approximately $1 million in costs and subsequently entered an
148