HP 2007 Annual Report Download - page 150

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
court’ s decision. On July 25, 2006, the Fifth District Appellate Court ruled that the trial court erred in applying Illinois law in
deciding to certify the Illinois class and to deny certification of the nationwide class and directed the trial court to reconsider
those decisions applying California law instead. On August 28, 2006, Intel appealed the Fifth District’ s decision to the
Illinois Supreme Court. On November 29, 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed certification of the nationwide class,
held that no statewide class could be certified under Illinois law, and remanded the case back to the trial court. Skold, et al. v.
Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is a lawsuit to which HP was joined on June 14, 2004 that was initially
filed in state court in Alameda County, California, based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois cases. The
plaintiffs in the Skold matter also seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class. The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa Clara County, California.
Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP) is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 16, 2005 asserting breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in violation of California’ s Unfair Competition
Law. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a “smart chip” in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink depletion
warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products. On September 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned Ciolino v. HP was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical to those in Feder, and
the two cases have been formally consolidated in a single proceeding in the District Court for the Northern District of
California under the caption In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation. In addition, on January 17, 2007, an additional lawsuit
captioned Blennis v. HP was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with allegations
substantially the same as those consolidated in In re 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.
Schorsch v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on October 28, 2003 in Illinois state court alleging that HP
has included an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM) chip in certain of its LaserJet printers that
prematurely advises the user that the drum kit needs replacing in violation of Illinois state law. The plaintiffs subsequently
filed an amended complaint seeking to expand the class from purchasers of drum kits to purchasers of all HP printer
consumables
136