This excerpt taken from the HPQ 10-Q filed Sep 11, 2006.
Settled and Concluded Litigation and Proceedings
Gateway Litigation. On March 1, 2006, HP announced that it had entered into a binding term sheet with Gateway, Inc. ("GW"), eMachines, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gateway ("eMachines"), and Amiga Development LLC, renamed AD Technologies ("ADT" and, collectively with GW and eMachines, "Gateway"), pursuant to which the parties agreed to negotiate and execute a definitive settlement agreement and a definitive patent cross-license agreement to memorialize the terms of their agreement to fully and finally resolve and settle the claims brought against one another and their
affiliated entities in various patent infringement and related lawsuits in California and Texas and in proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC"). In May 2006, the parties entered into the definitive settlement agreement and the definitive patent cross-license agreement. As part of the overall settlement, and in consideration of the releases and dismissals under the settlement agreement and the benefits under the patent cross-license agreement, Gateway agreed to pay HP a total of $47 million, $25 million which has been paid and $22 million to be paid not later than January 10, 2007. According to the terms of the definitive patent cross-license agreement, each party was granted a limited cross-license to the patents of the other party covering specified products in specified product categories, which license will terminate after a period of seven years with respect to all but seven of the cross-licensed patents and will continue for the life of the remaining seven patents. The lawsuits and proceedings described below have been resolved by the settlement:
among other similar multimedia products. This investigation was terminated by the ITC following a joint motion by the parties.
Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Company and Carleton Fiorina was a lawsuit filed on November 3, 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of a putative class of persons who sold common stock of HP during the period from September 4, 2001 through November 5, 2001. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages and generally alleged that HP and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws by making statements during this period that were misleading in failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the proposed acquisition of Compaq by HP prior to Mr. Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed transaction. The case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 16, 2006, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.