HP 2015 Annual Report Download - page 172

Table of Contents



asserted by both parties generally relate to inkjet printhead and print system technology. Both Memjet's and HP's respective complaints seek injunctive relief
and monetary damages from the other party for alleged patent infringement. On November 16, 2015, Memjet was granted an preliminary injunction
in Germany (State Court Munich), against HP Deutschland GmbH's sale and offers for sale of HP PageWide XL printers. Memjet's injunction request alleges
that HP infringes a Memjet European patent. On December 4, 2015, HP filed an opposition and an application to suspend enforcement of the preliminary
injunction pending a court hearing and decision. On December 9, 2015, the court denied HP's application to suspend enforcement prior to a hearing. A
hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2016.
 HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (" FLSA") and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters include the following:
• is a purported wage and hour class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California
Superior Court. The plaintiffs claim that EDS and HP information technology employees in the Infrastructure job codes working in California
were misclassified as exempt from overtime and wrongfully paid under the law. On October 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
Rule 23 state class of all California-based EDS employees in the Infrastructure Associate, Infrastructure Analyst, Infrastructure Specialist and
Infrastructure Specialist Senior job codes from March 16, 2005 through October 31, 2009 that they claim were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime under state law. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has been assigned
responsibility for this litigation.
• is a purported class action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting
computer software and/or hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also
alleged that HP violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13,
2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly
classified as exempt from overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field
Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. Pursuant to the separation and distribution
agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has been assigned responsibility for this litigation.
 On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the "DRI")
issued show cause notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd ("HP India"), a subsidiary of HP, seven HP India employees and one former HP India
employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of
approximately $370 million, plus penalties. Prior to the issuance of the show cause notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI
170
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.