Litigation and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jan. 31, 2024

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, 2024, 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 product and certain requirements for business sales exemptions and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders.

Based on the exemption of levies on business sales and industry opposition to increasing 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.

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. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, punitive damages, and other relief. In June 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter. The parties have finalized a settlement agreement, and the court preliminarily approved it on October 26, 2023. The Court has set the Final Approval Hearing for March 28, 2024.

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 March 23, 2022, the ITC rendered a final determination that no violation of Section 337 has occurred. Philips did not appeal and elected to resume litigation with its case in federal court. Philips seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against HP, and the prior stay has been lifted. On August 10, 2023, HP filed a motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness for all asserted claims.

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. In August 2021, the court stayed the case pending the decision in related cases brought by Caltech against Apple and Broadcom. On November 6, 2023, the court issued an order maintaining the stay of all discovery and deadlines pending discovery relating to whether Caltech has standing to bring suit with respect to the asserted patents and the court’s resolution of that issue. A hearing concerning Caltech’s standing is scheduled for May 2024.

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. Plaintiffs seek 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. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. On April 11, 2023, the appellate court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion, including consideration of HP’s other arguments for dismissal. On June 27, 2023, the district court issued an order setting the briefing schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss. 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 he 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 and exhaustion of all related appeals. 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 and exhaustion of all related appeals. Both derivative actions will remain stayed while the district court considers on remand HP’s other arguments for dismissal.

Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Since 2016, HP has from time to time been named in civil litigation, or been the subject of government investigations, involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers in multiple geographies, including but not limited to the United States, Italy, Israel, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand. 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 installation of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security. Plaintiffs base or have based their claims on various legal theories, including but not limited to unfair competition, computer trespass, and similar statutory claims. Among other relief, Plaintiffs have sought or seek money damages and in certain cases have or may seek injunctive relief against the use or operation of Dynamic Security or relief requiring interoperability. If HP is not successful in its defense of these cases or investigations, it could be subject to damages, penalties, significant settlement demands, or injunctive relief that may be costly or may disrupt operations. Certain of these proceedings in Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, Australia and New Zealand have been resolved, have concluded, or have concluded subject only to HP’s pending appeal. Civil litigation filed by Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) against HP Nederlands B.V., et al. (Netherlands) in March 2020, including its competition claim, remains pending. Both parties have appealed. In addition, two putative class actions have been filed against HP in federal court in California, in December 2020, April 2022, and one in federal court in Illinois, in January 2024, arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates in HP Laserjet printers, in HP Inkjet printers, and in both, respectively. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair and anticompetitive business practices, and other relief. In the case directed to Laserjet printers, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and, on December 8, 2023, the court entered an order denying in full plaintiffs’ request to certify a damages class and granting certification of a narrowed injunctive relief class composed of those who did not see HP’s disclosures. In its order, the court declined at this juncture to resolve the merits of the sufficiency of HP’s disclosures. The other cases are in their early stages.

Autonomy-Related Legal Proceedings.

As the result of an internal investigation, HP obtained information about certain accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred before and in connection with its 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. 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, for breach of their fiduciary duties in causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. The claims seek more than $5 billion in damages. Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed defenses and Mr. Lynch filed a counterclaim seeking $160 million in damages for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. Trial concluded in January 2020. On May 17, 2022, the court issued its final judgment, finding that HP succeeded on substantially all claims and that Messrs. Lynch and Hussein engaged in fraud, and dismissing Mr. Lynch’s counterclaim. The court deferred its damages ruling to a later, separate judgment to be issued after further proceedings, which began on February 12, 2024, but indicated that damages awarded may be substantially less than is claimed. 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. In addition, Messrs. Hussein and Lynch, and Stephen Chamberlain, former VP of Finance of Autonomy, were each indicted on federal criminal charges in the Northern District of California. On April 30, 2018, a jury found Mr. Hussein guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal in August 2020. Messrs. Lynch and Chamberlain are set to face trial on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud on March 18, 2024. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions.

Nokia Patent Litigation. On October 31, 2023, Nokia filed a complaint for patent infringement against HP in federal court for the District of Delaware asserting ten patents and filed two companion complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act against HP, asserting seven of the ten patents asserted in the federal court case. The complaints allege that HP products that are compliant with certain video coding technology standards, including Advanced Video Coding (H.264) or High Efficiency Video Coding (H.265) standards, infringe Nokia’s patents. In November 2023, the ITC instituted investigations on Nokia’s complaints. On December 11, 2023, HP filed counterclaims against Nokia in the Delaware action, including claims that Nokia violated its commitments to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms, and seeking a court determination of the proper FRAND rate. Nokia’s patent litigation against HP also includes a lawsuit filed in November 2023 against HP and six of its subsidiaries in the European Unified Patent Court in Germany, 2 lawsuits filed in November 2023 but served in January 2024 against HP and its German subsidiary in state court in Munich, Germany, and a lawsuit filed on December 1, 2023, against a subsidiary, HP Brasil Indústria e Comércio de Equipamentos Eletrônicos Ltda. (“HP Brazil”), in the state court in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. In Brazil, Nokia alleged that HP’s products contain “skip mode” technology compatible with H.264 video standards that infringes one of Nokia’s Brazilian patents. On December 4, 2023, before HP had received service of the lawsuit, the court granted Nokia an ex parte preliminary injunction against HP Brazil’s commercialization of such products in Brazil. HP has appealed the injunction and asked the appellate court to suspend its enforcement. If the court does not do so, the injunction in Brazil will take effect and remain in place unless overturned on appeal, until the state court revokes or modifies it, or the case is resolved. If HP is not successful in its defenses, it may be subject to injunctions, orders to recall products in Germany and other EU countries, or licensing demands to avoid potential disruptions to its business. On January 31, 2024, HP Brazil filed the non-infringement defense and a patent nullity action against Nokia. Given the procedural posture and nature of these cases, including proceedings that are in their early stages and have significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, HP is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses that may arise from these matters.

R2 Semiconductor Litigation. In November 2022, R2 Semiconductor, Inc. (“R2”) filed a lawsuit in the Dusseldorf Regional Court in Germany against Intel Deutschland GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH and certain other Intel customers. R2 asserts one European patent is infringed by HP’s products that contain certain Intel processors. R2 seeks an injunction prohibiting the sale of the alleged infringing products. Intel is indemnifying HP subject to certain limitations in the parties’ agreement. The Dusseldorf Regional Court conducted a trial on December 7, 2023 and issued an adverse judgment on February 7, 2024. The Court’s judgment imposes an injunction prohibiting sales of the accused products in Germany, an order to stop all other infringing actions, and an order to issue a communication to commercial customers recalling the relevant products sold since March 5, 2020, which could take effect upon notice of R2’s payment of the required sureties and remain in place unless stayed or overturned on appeal or the parties reach an agreement. On February 8, 2024, HP filed an appeal and request for a stay of the judgment pending appeal. Given the procedural posture, the nature of the case, and the relationship with Intel, HP is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses that might arise from this lawsuit and that would not be indemnifiable by Intel.

Litigation with Access Advance Patent Pool regarding video codecs. Access Advance LLC (“Access Advance”) is an independent licensing administrator formed to license allegedly essential patents for standards-based video codecs, which it licenses through various licensing pools. In late 2023, members of Access Advance’s HEVC Advance patent pool launched a patent litigation campaign against HP in Germany and Europe. To date, three pool members, Dolby, Mitsubishi Electric (“Mitsubishi”) and Konikijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) have each filed patent infringement lawsuits against HP and various affiliates. Specifically, Dolby filed a lawsuit against HP and 14 affiliates in the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Düsseldorf, and Mitsubishi and Philips each filed a lawsuit against HP and two affiliates in the State Court in Munich, Germany. The complaints allege that HP products that are compliant with the High Efficiency Video Coding (H.265) standard infringe the pool members' respective patents, seek an injunction, and allege that HP has failed to act as a willing licensee of HEVC essential patents based on HP's negotiations with Access Advance. If HP is not successful in its defenses in these suits, it may be subject to injunctions, recall orders, and claims for damages or face licensing demands to avoid potential disruptions to its business. Given the procedural posture and nature of these cases, which are in their early stages and have significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, HP is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses that may arise from these matters.

Environmental

    HP is, and may become a party to, proceedings brought by U.S., state, or other governmental entities or private third parties under federal, state, local, or foreign environmental laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or state laws similar to CERCLA. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediation at several current or former operating sites and former disposal sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with environmental agencies.