HP 2008 Annual Report Download - page 153

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
court denied all three motions. Plaintiffs have indicated an intention to seek certification of a
class of California consumers only.
• 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.
• 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.
LaserJet Printer Litigation. As described below, HP is involved in two lawsuits relating to
technology allegedly employed in its LaserJet printer products.
•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 that contain EEPROM chips. The most current amended complaint
seeks certification of an Illinois-only class and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and
costs.
•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.
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 seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a nationwide class.
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,
147