HP 2007 Annual Report Download - page 152

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 152 of the 2007 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 180

  • 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
  • 169
  • 170
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 177
  • 178
  • 179
  • 180

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
a claim. The Second Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to the District Court to permit the plaintiffs to attempt to plead the
allegations needed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
CSIRO Patent Litigation. Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation of Australia is an action filed by HP and two other plaintiffs on May 9, 2005 in the District
Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment against Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation of Australia (“CSIRO”) that HP’ s products employing the IEEE 802.11a and 8.02.11g wireless
protocol standards do not infringe CSIRO’ s US patent no. 5,487,069 relating to wireless transmission of data at frequencies
in excess of 10GHz. On September 22, 2005, CSIRO filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that all HP products which
employ those wireless protocol standards infringe the CSIRO patent and seeking damages, including enhanced damages and
attorneys fees and costs, and an injunction against sales of infringing products. On December 12, 2006, CSIRO successfully
moved to have the case transferred to the District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, a court that has granted CSIRO’ s
motions for summary judgment on the issues of validity and patent infringement and a permanent injunction in favor of
CSIRO in a patent infringement action brought by CSIRO against a third party vendor of wireless networking products based
on the same patent. On June 15, 2007, CSIRO filed an amended answer and counterclaims adding the allegation that all HP
products which employ the draft IEEE 802.11n wireless protocol infringe the CSIRO patent. Trial is scheduled for
April 2009.
Polaroid Corp. v. HP is a lawsuit filed against HP by Polaroid Corporation on December 2006 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit involves a single U.S. patent that will expire in April 2008. Polaroid
alleges that certain HP products containing “Digital Flash” or “Adaptive Lighting” technology infringe Polaroid’ s U.S. Patent
No. 4,829,381 relating to a system and method for continuously enhancing electronic images by varying the contrast in
different portions of the image. Polaroid seeks monetary relief. A trial is scheduled for December 2008.
Tandberg Data Corporation v. HP: In January 2006, Exabyte Corporation, which has since been acquired by Tandberg
Data Corporation, sued HP in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff alleges that a
particular HP tape drive infringes a patent that describes an apparatus and method for recovering data from a distorted tape by
rewinding and replaying the tape at a slower speed. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In
June 2006, HP asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff and is now asserting two HP patents relating to tape drive
technology. HP seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages for the plaintiff’ s alleged infringement. A claim construction
hearing is scheduled for January 2008, and a trial is scheduled for September 2008.
Convolve, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Compaq Computer Corporation and Seagate Technology,
Inc. In July 2000, Compaq and Seagate were sued in the United States District court for the Southern District of New York
by MIT and a small technology company named Convolve. Convolve accused Compaq and Seagate of misappropriating
certain confidential information and infringing certain patents in Seagate’ s development of certain disk drive products and
Compaq’ s development of a user interface. MIT and Convolve are owners of one of the patents at issue. With respect to one
of the patents, the accused feature is contained within the Seagate drive procured by Compaq, not in Compaq’ s own designs
or products; therefore, Seagate is taking the lead in defending against Convolve’ s claims. The second patent relates to a user
interface that HP has removed from its
138