Litigation and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Litigation and Contingencies HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. HP accrues a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. HP believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of January 31, 2022, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in HP’s financial statements. HP reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement entered into with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Hewlett Packard Enterprise”), HP shares responsibility with Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain matters, as indicated below, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in whole or in part with respect to certain matters. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations Copyright Levies. Proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European countries, challenging the imposition or the modification of levies regimes upon IT equipment (such as PCs or printers) or the restrictions to exonerate the application of private copying levies on devices purchased by business users. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some European countries are expected to implement legislation to introduce or extend existing levy schemes to digital devices. HP, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and certain requirements for business sales exemptions, and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders. 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 ongoing disputes. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation. On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission critical servers. HP asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. In the first phase of the bifurcated trial, the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. In the second phase, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. The court entered judgment for HP for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle appealed the trial court’s judgment and HP filed a cross appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s judgment and its denial of prejudgment interest to HP. Oracle filed a petition with the California Supreme Court for review, which was denied on September 29, 2021. On October 12, 2021, Oracle paid approximately $4.65 billion to satisfy the judgment with interest. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, HP recorded approximately $2.3 billion as a gain (Interest and other, net) in relation to the damages awarded, representing HP’s interest in the amount recovered, which is being shared equally between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, less $47.4 million reimbursed to Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the Separation. On January 27, 2022, Oracle filed a petition for certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court for review. Review by the United States Supreme Court is discretionary, and HP believes the likelihood the award of damages will be reduced or reversed is remote. Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (“HPE”) alleging the defendants violated federal and state law by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. In their most recent complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent (1) a putative nationwide federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) collective comprised of all former HP Inc. employees 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated under a WFR plan in or after 2014 or 2015, depending on state law; and (2) a putative Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all former HP Inc. employees 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated in California under a WFR plan in or after 2012. Excluded from the putative collective and class are employees who (a) signed a Waiver and General Release Agreement at termination, or (b) signed an Agreement to Arbitrate Claims. Similar claims are pending against HPE. Because the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification of the putative nationwide ADEA collectives, a third-party administrator notified eligible former employees of their right to opt into the ADEA collective. This opt-in period closed on February 15, 2022, and the next case management conference is anticipated to set discovery timelines for the remainder of 2022. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, punitive damages, and other relief. India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. 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 Limited (“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 and interest. Prior to the issuance of the notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI’s agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts or interrupt business by HP India. On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11, 2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related notice. The differential duty demand is subject to interest. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related notice so as to avoid certain penalties. HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner’s orders before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Customs Tribunal”) along with applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of remaining demand amounts as a condition for hearing the appeals. The Customs Department has also filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On January 24, 2013, the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. On February 7, 2014, the Customs Tribunal granted HP India’s application for extension of the stay of deposit until disposal of the appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner’s orders and rejected HP India’s request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The Customs Tribunal cancelled hearings to reconvene in 2015, 2016 and January 2019. On January 20, 2021, the Customs Tribunal held a virtual hearing during which the judge allowed HP’s application for a physical hearing on the merits as soon as practicable, which will be scheduled when physical hearings resume at court. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses. Philips Patent Litigation. In September 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC (collectively, “Philips”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in federal court for the District of Delaware and filed a companion complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act against HP and 8 other sets of respondents. Both complaints allege that certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof infringe four of Philips’ patents. In October 2020, the ITC instituted an investigation, and Philips later withdrew two of the four patents. On October 21, 2021, the ITC rendered an initial determination that there is no violation of Section 337. The ITC is expected to render a final decision by March 23, 2022. In the ITC proceeding, Philips seeks an order enjoining respondents from importing, or selling after importation, the accused products. In the district court case, Philips seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against HP, and the case has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC proceeding. Caltech Patent Litigation. On November 11, 2020, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in the federal court for the Western District of Texas. On March 19, 2021, Caltech filed an amendment to this same complaint. The complaint as amended alleges infringement of five of Caltech’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,716,552; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833. The accused products are HP commercial and consumer PCs as well as wireless printers that comply with the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards. Caltech seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The court stayed the case pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in The California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd et al., Case No. 2020-2222, which was issued on February 4, 2022. The court has directed the parties to submit their positions regarding next steps on the stay. In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation (Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al.). On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted HP’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion. Plaintiffs are appealing the decision. York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al., and related proceedings. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 3, 2022 the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. By court order following stipulations by the parties, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the case was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County. On January 13, 2022, stockholder Gerald Lovoi filed a derivative complaint in federal court in the Northern District of California against the same current and former officers and directors named in the Franklin action. The complaint alleges the same basic claims based on the same alleged conduct as the Franklin action and seeks similar relief. By stipulation of the parties, the Lovoi action was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County. Both derivative actions will remain stayed until any appeal related to the York decision has been exhausted. Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Civil litigation or government investigations involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers are pending, have concluded, or may be filed or opened in multiple geographies, including but not limited to the United States, Italy, Israel, and the Netherlands. The supplies authentication protocols are often referred to as Dynamic Security. The core allegations in these proceedings claim misleading or inadequate consumer notifications and permissions pertaining to the use of Dynamic Security, the impact of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security. 123Inkt Foundation litigation (Netherlands). On November 23, 2016, a foundation known as Stichting 123Inkt-Huismerk Klanten (the “Foundation”) filed a complaint in district court in Amsterdam against HP Nederland B.V. and HP Inc. arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) established the Foundation to pursue the interests of approximately 960 of its customers who transferred their claims to it. The complaint alleges that HP’s use of Dynamic Security was unlawful, asserts a variety of claims, and seeks injunctive relief to prohibit use of Dynamic Security, damages, and attorneys’ fees. In December 2019, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected the Foundation’s argument that Dynamic Security is unlawful but ruled that error messages displayed on HP printers in September 2016 without providing prior warning regarding Dynamic Security were misleading. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. On December 24, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its final decision concluding that both parties’ appeals should be rejected. This affirms the Appeal Court decision. No further appeal is permitted. Gensin v. HP Inc. (Israel). HP is named in a consolidated, consumer class action pending in the District Court in Jerusalem relating to HP’s use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers, which was initially filed on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff asserts consumer protection, tort and other statutory claims primarily on the basis that no information on Dynamic Security was available in Hebrew, and plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. HP has reached an agreement to settle this case, which the court approved on February 9, 2022. Consumer Protection Investigation (Italy). In December 2020, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) (“AGCM”) notified HP of its decision that HP engaged in unfair commercial practices with respect to its disclosures to consumers about Dynamic Security and alleged use of certain warranty and data collection practices regarding the use of third-party cartridges in HP printers. The AGCM decision (i) ordered HP to end the allegedly unfair commercial practices; (ii) fined HP €5 million for each alleged unfair practice (total €10 million); (iii) required HP to file a compliance report within 60 days; (iv) ordered HP to publicly publish a corrective statement within 120 days; and (v) ordered HP to amend the packaging of its printers within 120 days. On December 21, 2020, HP paid the imposed fines. On February 5, 2021, HP filed an appeal. On April 6, 2021, HP filed its compliance report, which it subsequently supplemented, and, on June 23, 2021 the AGCM accepted the compliance plan as sufficient. HP’s appeal is pending in front of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio. Digital Revolution B.V. v. HP Nederland B.V., et al. (Netherlands). On March 30, 2020, Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) served a complaint filed in Amsterdam District Court. The complaint generally alleges that HP’s use of Dynamic Security in certain HP printers constituted a violation of competition law and unfair and misleading commercial practices and advertising. The complaint asserts a variety of claims and seeks injunctive relief, including prohibition of Dynamic Security and disclosure of cartridge authentication protocols, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 15, 2021, the court issued its decision rejecting the competition law claims, the request to prohibit Dynamic Security, and the remainder of 123Inkt’s claims but held HP liable to 123inkt where it can show, in separate proceedings, that it suffered damages resulting from the display of certain old error messages. The decision is subject to appeal. Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., et al. v. HP, Inc. (United States). In December 2020, HP was named in a putative nationwide consumer class action pending in federal court in California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates in certain LaserJet printers. The complaint alleges a variety of claims, including state consumer protection and unfair business claims and state and federal computer access and data collection claims. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair business practices, and other relief. The case is in its early stages and discovery has commenced. Autonomy-Related Legal Matters Investigations. As a result of the findings of an internal investigation, HP provided information to government authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) related to accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred before and in connection with HP’s 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. In November 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, former CFO of Autonomy on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleged that Mr. Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about Autonomy’s true financial performance and condition. On April 30, 2018, a jury found Mr. Hussain guilty of all charges against him, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal in August 2020. In November 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Michael Lynch, former CEO of Autonomy, and Stephen Chamberlain, former VP of Finance of Autonomy. The indictment charged Dr. Lynch and Mr. Chamberlain with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud. On January 28, 2022, the U.K. Home Office approved U.S. demands to have Mr. Lynch extradited to face the charges. The extradition decision is subject to appeal, and Mr. Lynch has stated publicly that he intends to appeal. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions. Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four former HP subsidiaries that became subsidiaries of Hewlett Packard Enterprise at the time of the Separation (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems, Limited, and Autonomy, Inc.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. Trial was completed in January 2020. On January 28, 2022, the court issued a summary of its key findings in a confidential draft judgment, including the court’s ruling that the claimants have substantially succeeded in their claims against Messrs. Lynch and Hussein and that Mr. Lynch’s counterclaim was “undermined” by the court’s findings and is, therefore, not addressed in the draft judgment. The draft judgment remains confidential, and the court has stated it will be released after a usual process for checking and correction is completed, which the court has stated may take longer than usual given the length of the draft judgment. The Court also stated that it will determine damages in a later, separate judgment and indicated that the damages awarded may be substantially less than is claimed. No amount has yet been awarded. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages or as to how any award of damages will compare with the amount claimed. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery. Environmental HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or state laws similar to CERCLA, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies.

HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. HP accrues a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. HP believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of January 31, 2022, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in HP’s financial statements. HP reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement entered into with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Hewlett Packard Enterprise”), HP shares responsibility with Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain matters, as indicated below, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in whole or in part with respect to certain matters. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Copyright Levies. Proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European countries, challenging the imposition or the modification of levies regimes upon IT equipment (such as PCs or printers) or the restrictions to exonerate the application of private copying levies on devices purchased by business users. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some European countries are expected to implement legislation to introduce or extend existing levy schemes to digital devices. HP, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and certain requirements for

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation. On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission critical servers. HP asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. In the first phase of the bifurcated trial, the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. In the second phase, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. The court entered judgment for HP for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle appealed the trial court’s judgment and HP filed a cross appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s judgment and its denial of prejudgment interest to HP. Oracle filed a petition with the California Supreme Court for review, which was denied on September 29, 2021. On October 12, 2021, Oracle paid approximately $4.65 billion to satisfy the judgment with interest. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, HP recorded approximately $2.3 billion as a gain (Interest and other, net) in relation to the damages awarded, representing HP’s interest in the amount recovered, which is being shared equally between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, less $47.4 million reimbursed to Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the Separation. On January 27, 2022, Oracle filed a petition for certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court for review. Review by the United States Supreme Court is discretionary, and HP believes the likelihood the award of damages will be reduced or reversed is remote.

Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (“HPE”) alleging the defendants violated federal and state law by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. In their most recent complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent (1) a putative nationwide federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) collective comprised of all former HP Inc. employees 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated under a WFR plan in or after 2014 or 2015, depending on state law; and (2) a putative Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all former HP Inc. employees 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated in California under a WFR plan in or after 2012. Excluded from the putative collective and class are employees who (a) signed a Waiver and General Release Agreement at termination, or (b) signed an Agreement to Arbitrate Claims. Similar claims are pending against HPE. Because the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification of the putative nationwide ADEA collectives, a third-party administrator notified eligible former employees of their right to opt into the ADEA collective. This opt-in period closed on February 15, 2022, and the next case management conference is anticipated to set discovery timelines for the remainder of 2022. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, punitive damages, and other relief.

India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. 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 Limited (“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 and interest. Prior to the issuance of the notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI’s agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts or interrupt business by HP India.

On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11, 2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related notice. The differential duty demand is subject to interest. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related notice so as to avoid certain penalties.

the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. On February 7, 2014, the Customs Tribunal granted HP India’s application for extension of the stay of deposit until disposal of the appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner’s orders and rejected HP India’s request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The Customs Tribunal cancelled hearings to reconvene in 2015, 2016 and January 2019. On January 20, 2021, the Customs Tribunal held a virtual hearing during which the judge allowed HP’s application for a physical hearing on the merits as soon as practicable, which will be scheduled when physical hearings resume at court. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses.

Philips Patent Litigation. In September 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC (collectively, “Philips”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in federal court for the District of Delaware and filed a companion complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act against HP and 8 other sets of respondents. Both complaints allege that certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof infringe four of Philips’ patents. In October 2020, the ITC instituted an investigation, and Philips later withdrew two of the four patents. On October 21, 2021, the ITC rendered an initial determination that there is no violation of Section 337. The ITC is expected to render a final decision by March 23, 2022. In the ITC proceeding, Philips seeks an order enjoining respondents from importing, or selling after importation, the accused products. In the district court case, Philips seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against HP, and the case has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC proceeding.

Caltech Patent Litigation. On November 11, 2020, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in the federal court for the Western District of Texas. On March 19, 2021, Caltech filed an amendment to this same complaint. The complaint as amended alleges infringement of five of Caltech’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,716,552; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833. The accused products are HP commercial and consumer PCs as well as wireless printers that comply with the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards. Caltech seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The court stayed the case pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in The California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd et al., Case No. 2020-2222, which was issued on February 4, 2022. The court has directed the parties to submit their positions regarding next steps on the stay.

In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation (Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al.). On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted HP’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion. Plaintiffs are appealing the decision.

York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al., and related proceedings. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 3, 2022 the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes

substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. By court order following stipulations by the parties, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the case was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County. On January 13, 2022, stockholder Gerald Lovoi filed a derivative complaint in federal court in the Northern District of California against the same current and former officers and directors named in the Franklin action. The complaint alleges the same basic claims based on the same alleged conduct as the Franklin action and seeks similar relief. By stipulation of the parties, the Lovoi action was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County. Both derivative actions will remain stayed until any appeal related to the York decision has been exhausted.

Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Civil litigation or government investigations involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers are pending, have concluded, or may be filed or opened in multiple geographies, including but not limited to the United States, Italy, Israel, and the Netherlands. The supplies authentication protocols are often referred to as Dynamic Security. The core allegations in these proceedings claim misleading or inadequate consumer notifications and permissions pertaining to the use of Dynamic Security, the impact of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security.

123Inkt Foundation litigation (Netherlands). On November 23, 2016, a foundation known as Stichting 123Inkt-Huismerk Klanten (the “Foundation”) filed a complaint in district court in Amsterdam against HP Nederland B.V. and HP Inc. arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) established the Foundation to pursue the interests of approximately 960 of its customers who transferred their claims to it. The complaint alleges that HP’s use of Dynamic Security was unlawful, asserts a variety of claims, and seeks injunctive relief to prohibit use of Dynamic Security, damages, and attorneys’ fees. In December 2019, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected the Foundation’s argument that Dynamic Security is unlawful but ruled that error messages displayed on HP printers in September 2016 without providing prior warning regarding Dynamic Security were misleading. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. On December 24, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its final decision concluding that both parties’ appeals should be rejected. This affirms the Appeal Court decision. No further appeal is permitted.

Gensin v. HP Inc. (Israel). HP is named in a consolidated, consumer class action pending in the District Court in Jerusalem relating to HP’s use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers, which was initially filed on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff asserts consumer protection, tort and other statutory claims primarily on the basis that no information on Dynamic Security was available in Hebrew, and plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. HP has reached an agreement to settle this case, which the court approved on February 9, 2022.

Consumer Protection Investigation (Italy). In December 2020, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) (“AGCM”) notified HP of its decision that HP engaged in unfair commercial practices with respect to its disclosures to consumers about Dynamic Security and alleged use of certain warranty and data collection practices regarding the use of third-party cartridges in HP printers. The AGCM decision (i) ordered HP to end the allegedly unfair commercial practices; (ii) fined HP €5 million for each alleged unfair practice (total €10 million); (iii) required HP to file a compliance report within 60 days; (iv) ordered HP to publicly publish a corrective statement within 120 days; and (v) ordered HP to amend the packaging of its printers within 120 days. On December 21, 2020, HP paid the imposed fines. On February 5, 2021, HP filed an appeal. On April 6, 2021, HP filed its compliance report, which it subsequently supplemented, and, on June 23, 2021 the AGCM accepted the compliance plan as sufficient. HP’s appeal is pending in front of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio.

Digital Revolution B.V. v. HP Nederland B.V., et al. (Netherlands). On March 30, 2020, Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) served a complaint filed in Amsterdam District Court. The complaint generally alleges that HP’s use of Dynamic Security in certain HP printers constituted a violation of competition law and unfair and misleading commercial practices and advertising. The complaint asserts a variety of claims and seeks injunctive relief, including prohibition of Dynamic Security and disclosure of cartridge authentication protocols, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 15, 2021, the court issued its decision rejecting the competition law claims, the request to prohibit Dynamic Security, and the remainder of 123Inkt’s claims but held HP liable to 123inkt where it can show, in separate proceedings, that it suffered damages resulting from the display of certain old error messages. The decision is subject to appeal.

Investigations. As a result of the findings of an internal investigation, HP provided information to government authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) related to accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred before and in connection with HP’s 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. In November 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, former CFO of Autonomy on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleged that Mr. Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about Autonomy’s true financial performance and condition. On April 30, 2018, a jury found Mr. Hussain guilty of all charges against him, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal in August 2020. In November 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Michael Lynch, former CEO of Autonomy, and Stephen Chamberlain, former VP of Finance of Autonomy. The indictment charged Dr. Lynch and Mr. Chamberlain with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud. On January 28, 2022, the U.K. Home Office approved U.S. demands to have Mr. Lynch extradited to face the charges. The extradition decision is subject to appeal, and Mr. Lynch has stated publicly that he intends to appeal. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions.

Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four former HP subsidiaries that became subsidiaries of Hewlett Packard Enterprise at the time of the Separation (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems, Limited, and Autonomy, Inc.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. Trial was completed in January 2020. On January 28, 2022, the court issued a summary of its key findings in a confidential draft judgment, including the court’s ruling that the claimants have substantially succeeded in their claims against Messrs. Lynch and Hussein and that Mr. Lynch’s counterclaim was “undermined” by the court’s findings and is, therefore, not addressed in the draft judgment. The draft judgment remains confidential, and the court has stated it will be released after a usual process for checking and correction is completed, which the court has stated may take longer than usual given the length of the draft judgment. The Court also stated that it will determine damages in a later, separate judgment and indicated that the damages awarded may be substantially less than is claimed. No amount has yet been awarded. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages or as to how any award of damages will compare with the amount claimed. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery.

HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or state laws similar to CERCLA, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies.