XML 29 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Litigation and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 31, 2025
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 July 31, 2025, 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. 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 o rdered 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. In unrelated, third-party proceedings, the Supreme Court of India has resolved certain jurisdictional questions to the authority of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, issues which HP also raised in its appeal to the Customs Tribunal. In late 2024, those jurisdictional questions were resolved. Between late April and June 18, 2025, the Customs Tribunal held three weeks of hearings on the appeals. The matter is presently pending a decision. If the decision is adverse, HP should be entitled to appeal on the merits to the Supreme Court of India, although HP may be required to make additional deposits. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, base d on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses. Media Content Protection LLC Patent Litigation (formerly 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. On July 1, 2024, the district court denied the motion without prejudice to renew. Philips conveyed the patents asserted in the district court action to Media Content Protection LLC (“MCP”), and MCP was substituted as plaintiff in place of Philips. 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 (“Securities Class Action”). 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 July 21, 2023, HP and the named officers filed a renewed motion to dismiss. On March 27, 2024, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On August 8, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted HP’s petition for permission to appeal. On October 28, 2024, HP filed its appeal, which is awaiting appellate court oral argument that has not yet been scheduled. On July 28, 2025, the parties executed a binding term sheet containing the material terms of a proposed settlement. On August 19, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the district court. 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. On May 31, 2024, the court adopted a stipulation in which the derivative plaintiffs and defendants agreed to consolidate the derivative proceedings, close the Lovoi action, and extend the current stay through summary judgment in the Securities Class Action. 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 the United States, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, Australia and New Zealand have been resolved, have concluded, or have concluded subject only to HP’s pending appeal. Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) filed civil litigation, including competition claims, against HP Nederlands B.V., et al. (Netherlands) in March 2020. HP substantially prevailed before the trial court, and both parties appealed. On November 19, 2024, the court of appeal issued a decision rejecting competition claims against HP and providing that use of Dynamic Security by HP is not unlawful. On February 18, 2025, Digital Revolution filed a cassation appeal against the decision before the Dutch Supreme Court. In addition, a putative class action was filed against HP in federal court in Illinois in January 2024, arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates in HP printers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair and anticompetitive business practices, and other relief. The case is in its early stages. Autonomy-Related Legal Proceedings. In 2015, four former Hewlett Packard Company 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., hereinafter the “Claimants”) 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 before and in connection with the 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. Trial concluded in January 2020. In May 2022, the court issued its liability judgment, finding that the Claimants had succeeded on substantially all claims and that Messrs. Lynch and Hussain engaged in fraud, and dismissing a counterclaim filed by Mr. Lynch. The court deferred the issue of damages to further proceedings, but indicated that damages awarded may be substantially less than was claimed. In February 2024, the court held a two-week trial on damages, the Claimants sought recovery for $4 billion in losses, and the court took the issue under advisement. In May 2025, Claimants reached an agreement with Mr. Hussain to resolve claims against him. On July 22, 2025, the court issued its ruling on the quantum of damages, finding that the Lynch estate owed approximately 740 million pounds. The court set a hearing for the week of November 17, 2025, to address additional matters, including attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and the relevant date to use for the exchange rate to convert the recovery from pounds to dollars. The damages award is also subject to a set-off for prior settlements. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance of a recovery. Any amount ultimately recovered would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential recovery. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery. Litigation with Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. and Sisvel International S.A. Since September 13, 2024, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. (“Wilus”) has filed three patent infringement lawsuits against HP in the Eastern District of Texas seeking monetary damages, injunctions and other relief. The complaints allege that HP products, that are compliant with the Wi-Fi 6 (801.11.ax) standard, infringe patents owned by Wilus. Wilus is a member of the Wi-Fi 6 patent pool administered by Sisvel International S.A. (“Sisvel”), and the patents at issue in the lawsuits are in the Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 patent pool. In December 2024, HP answered the complaints and filed counterclaims against Wilus and Sisvel, alleging that Wilus and Sisvel violated their obligations to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discrimination (“FRAND”) terms, and seeking a court determination of the proper FRAND rate. As of August 8, 2025, another Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 pool member Koniklijke Philips N.V. and its affiliate Philips GmbH (together, “Philips”) filed three lawsuits against HP Inc., HP Deutschland GmbH and HP International SARL, in the State Court in Munich, Germany asserting pool patents related to Wi-Fi 6 standards. Philips seeks an injunction, reporting, damages and product recall in two of its claims and hearings are scheduled on May 21, 2026 and June 11, 2026. The third claim relates to an expired patent for which Philips seeks damages, and a hearing is scheduled on July 30, 2026. As of August 26, 2025, another pool member, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (“Huawei”), filed two lawsuits against HP Inc. and HP Deutschland GmbH in the State Court in Munich, Germany, asserting pool patents related to Wi-Fi 6 standards. Relief sought includes an injunction, reporting, damages, product recall and/or destruction of inventory, and a hearing has been set in one case for March 26, 2026. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration