HP 2015 Annual Report Download - page 171

Table of Contents



German Federal Supreme Court issued a decision on July 3, 2014 partially granting the claim of VG Wort. The German Federal Supreme Court decision
provides that levies are due for audio-visual copying of standing text and pictures using a PC as the last device in a single reproduction process under the
control of the same person, but no levies are due on a PC for reprographic copies made using a "PC-printer" or a "scanner-PC-printer" chain. The case has been
remitted to the Munich Court of Appeals to assess the amount to be paid per PC unit.
Reprobel, a cooperative society with the authority to collect and distribute the remuneration for reprography to Belgian copyright holders, requested by
extra-judicial means that HP amend certain copyright levy declarations submitted for inkjet MFDs sold in Belgium from January 2005 to December 2009 to
enable it to collect copyright levies calculated based on the generally higher copying speed when the MFDs are operated in draft print mode rather than when
operated in normal print mode. In March 2010, HP filed a lawsuit against Reprobel in the French-speaking chambers of the Court of First Instance of Brussels
seeking a declaratory judgment that no copyright levies are payable on sales of MFDs in Belgium or, alternatively, that copyright levies payable on such
MFDs must be assessed based on the copying speed when operated in the normal print mode set by default in the device. On November 16, 2012, the court
issued a decision holding that Belgium law is not in conformity with EU law in a number of respects and ordered that, by November 2013, Reprobel
substantiate that the amounts claimed by Reprobel are commensurate with the harm resulting from legitimate copying under the reprographic exception. HP
subsequently appealed that court decision to the Courts of Appeal in Brussels seeking to confirm that the Belgian law is not in conformity with EU law and
that, if Belgian law is interpreted in a manner consistent with EU law, no payments by HP are required or, alternatively, the payments already made by HP are
sufficient to comply with its obligations under Belgian law. On October 23, 2013, the Court of Appeal in Brussels stayed the proceedings and referred several
questions to the CJEU relating to whether the Belgian reprographic copyright levies system is in conformity with EU law. The case was heard by the CJEU on
January 29, 2015 and on November 12, 2015, the CJEU published its judgment providing that a national legislation such as the Belgian one at issue in the
main proceedings is incompatible with EU law in multiple legal points, as argued by HP. The Court of Appeal of Brussels now has to rule on the litigation
between HP and Reprobel following the answers provided by the CJEU.
Based on industry opposition to the extension of levies to digital products, HP's assessments of the merits of various proceedings and HP's estimates of
the number of units impacted and the amounts of the levies, HP has accrued amounts that it believes are adequate to address the matters described above.
However, the ultimate resolution of these matters and the associated financial impact on HP, including the number of units impacted and the amount of levies
imposed, remains uncertain.
 On August 11, 2015, Memjet Technology Ltd. ("Memjet") filed a lawsuit against HP in U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that HP infringes eight Memjet patents. The products accused of infringement are those that use the HP
PageWide Technology, including the OfficeJet Pro X series, OfficeJet Enterprise X series, HP PageWide XL, wide scan printers, and printers using 4.25-inch
thermal inkjet printheads, such as HP Web Presses and Photo Kiosks. On October 2, 2015, HP answered Memjet's complaint and asserted a counter-claim
against Memjet for infringement of four HP patents. The products accused of infringement include various Memjet OEM printers that incorporate Memjet's
printheads and print engines. On November 20, 2015, HP asserted three additional patents against Memjet. The patents
169
Source: HP INC, 10-K, December 16, 2015 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠
The information contained herein may not be copied, adapted or distributed and is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. The user assumes all risks for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information,
except to the extent such damages or losses cannot be limited or excluded by applicable law. Past financial performance is no guarantee of future results.