HP 2005 Annual Report Download - page 127

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
the caption In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, and the Tyler, Obi, and Weingart cases will be dismissed
without prejudice by the plaintiffs. Grabell v. HP was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on March 18, 2005 and asserted causes of action under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, with similar allegations to the cases above. Just v. HP was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 20, 2005 and asserted causes of action
under the New York General Business Law 349/350 and for unjust enrichment and breach of the
implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. The allegations in both cases are similar to the
allegations described above. By agreement between the parties, Grabell and Just have been dismissed
without prejudice by the plaintiffs.
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. This action seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On March 26, 2004, the court issued a ruling
interpreting the disputed claim terms in the patent at issue. Trial is expected to commence in mid- to
late 2007.
HP, Gateway, Inc. (‘‘Gateway’’) and certain of their affiliated entities are involved in various patent
infringement and related lawsuits in California and Texas and in proceedings before the United States
International Trade Commission, as described below.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP v. Gateway, Inc. is a lawsuit filed on March 24, 2004 by
HP’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (‘‘HPDC’’), against
Gateway in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging
infringement of patents relating to various notebook, desktop and enterprise computer technologies and
seeking an injunction, unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys’ fees. On May 10, 2004,
Gateway filed an answer and a counterclaim, alleging infringement of various patents relating to
computerized television, wireless communication, computer monitoring and computer expansion card
technologies and seeking an injunction, unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys’ fees.
On May 6, 2004, HP and HPDC filed a complaint with the United States International Trade
Commission (‘‘ITC’’) alleging that Gateway infringes various computer technology patents and seeking
an injunction. Following trial in March 2005, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial
determination that Gateway violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by importing
certain personal computers found to infringe two HPDC patents related to parallel ports and issued a
limited exclusion order barring the importation of Gateway’s accused products. The court also held that
the other two HPDC patents at issue were invalid, not infringed or both. On December 8, 2005, the
ITC issued a notice of decision to vacate portions of the initial determination, including the literal
infringement finding with respect to the parallel port patents and the related exclusion order. The ITC
also remanded the investigation to the Administrative Law Judge for, among other things, a
determination of whether certain claims of the parallel port patents are infringed under the doctrine of
equivalents. The Administrative Law Judge will set a new date to conclude the investigation.
123