Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)

Concluded Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

        Tandberg Data Corporation v. HP. In January 2006, Exabyte Corporation, which was subsequently acquired by Tandberg Data Corporation, sued HP in the United States District Court for the District of

36

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements (Continued)

(Unaudited)

Note 14: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)

Colorado. The plaintiff alleged that a particular HP tape drive infringed a patent that describes an apparatus and method for recovering data from a distorted tape by rewinding and replaying the tape at a slower speed. In June 2006, HP filed counterclaims against the plaintiff, including a claim of patent infringement of one HP patent relating to tape drive technology. Both parties sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In May 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter with HP paying the plaintiff an amount of money that is immaterial to HP and by dismissing the pending lawsuit. An order of dismissal was entered in June 2008.

Concluded Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

        Tandberg Data Corporation v. HP. In January 2006, Exabyte Corporation, which was subsequently acquired by Tandberg Data Corporation, sued HP in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff alleged that a particular HP tape drive infringed a patent that describes an apparatus and method for recovering data from a distorted tape by rewinding and replaying the tape at a slower speed. In June 2006, HP filed counterclaims against the plaintiff, including a claim of patent infringement of one HP patent relating to tape drive technology. Both parties sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In May 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter with HP paying the plaintiff an amount of money that is immaterial to HP and by dismissing the pending lawsuit.

Concluded Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

        Miller, et al. v. Hewlett Packard Company was a lawsuit filed on March 21, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of a putative class of persons who were employed by third-party temporary service agencies and who performed work at HP facilities in the United States. The plaintiffs claimed that they were incorrectly classified as contractors or contingent workers and, as

37

a result, were wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and benefits not covered by ERISA. The plaintiffs also claimed they were denied participation in HP's Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance program, credit union, dependent care reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time off programs, flexible work arrangements, and the 401(k) plan. On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") claim. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. HP successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and WARN claims on June 23, 2005, and the court dismissed those claims on December 15, 2005. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining claim, for breach of contract, on January 4, 2007.

Concluded Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

        Miller, et al. v. Hewlett Packard Company was a lawsuit filed on March 21, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of a putative class of persons who were employed by third-party temporary service agencies and who performed work at HP facilities in the United States. The plaintiffs claimed that they were incorrectly classified as contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and benefits not covered by ERISA. The plaintiffs also claimed they were denied participation in HP's Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance program, credit union, dependent care reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time off programs, flexible work arrangements, and the 401(k) plan. On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") claim. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. HP successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and WARN claims on June 23, 2005, and the court dismissed those claims on December 15, 2005. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining claim, for breach of contract, on January 4, 2007.

Concluded Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations

Miller, et al. v. Hewlett Packard Company was a lawsuit filed on March 21, 2005 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of a putative class of persons who were employed by third-party temporary service agencies and who performed work at HP facilities in the United States. The plaintiffs claimed that they were incorrectly classified as contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and benefits not covered by ERISA. The plaintiffs also claimed they were denied participation in HP’s Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance program, credit union, dependent care reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time off programs, flexible work arrangements, and the 401(k) plan. On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) claim. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. HP successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and WARN claims on June 23, 2005, and the court dismissed those claims on December 15, 2005. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the sole remaining claim, for breach of contract, on January 4, 2007.