HP 2006 Annual Report Download - page 134

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 134 of the 2006 HP annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 168

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 166
  • 167
  • 168

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
Court for the Northern District of California under the caption In Re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Three related lawsuits filed in California state court, Tyler v. HP
(filed in Santa Clara County on February 17, 2005), Obi v. HP (filed in Los Angeles County on
February 17, 2005), and Weingart v. HP (filed in Los Angeles County on March 18, 2005), have been
dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs. In addition, two related lawsuits filed in federal court,
namely Grabell v. HP (filed in the District of New Jersey on March 18, 2005) and Just v. HP (filed in
the Eastern District of New York on April 20, 2005), have been dismissed without prejudice by the
plaintiffs. Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-
Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian class actions, 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, all seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.
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 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. 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.
Miller, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a lawsuit filed on March 21, 2005 in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of a putative class of persons who were employed by
third-party temporary service agencies and who performed work at HP facilities in the United States.
Plaintiffs claim that they were incorrectly classified as contractors or contingent workers and, as a
result, were wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (‘‘ERISA’’) and benefits not covered by ERISA. Plaintiffs claim they were denied
participation in HP’s Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance program,
credit union, dependent care reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time off
programs, flexible work arrangements, and the 401(k) plan. On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their first
amended complaint, which added a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (‘‘WARN’’)
claim and defined the class to include those persons who have been, or now are, hired by HP through
agencies to work at HP facilities in the United States from March 21, 2000 through the present who
have been deprived of the full benefit of employee status by being misclassified as contractors,
contingent workers or temporary workers or were otherwise misclassed. Plaintiffs seek declaratory
relief, an injunction, retroactive and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages and
enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. HP successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and
WARN claims. The sole remaining claim being advanced by the remaining plaintiffs in this case is a
breach of contract claim.
Digwamaje et al. v. Bank of America et al. is a purported class action lawsuit that names HP and
numerous other multinational corporations as defendants. It was filed on September 27, 2002 in United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former South
African citizens and their survivors who suffered violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.
130