Pitney Bowes (PBI)

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely defendants in or party to a number of pending and threatened legal actions. These may involve litigation by or against us relating to, among other things, contractual rights under vendor, insurance or other contracts; intellectual property or patent rights; equipment, service, payment or other disputes with customers; or disputes with employees. Some of these actions may be brought as a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of employees, customers or others.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a defendant in ten purported class actions filed in six different states. These lawsuits have been coordinated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, In re: Imagitas, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act Litigation (Coordinated, May 28, 2007). Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas enters into contracts with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any state resident to any advertiser. The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its governmental function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages under the DPPA and an injunction against the continuation of the program. On April 9, 2008, the District Court granted Imagitas’ motion for summary judgment in one of the coordinated cases, Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006). On July 30, 2008, the District Court issued a final judgment in the Rine lawsuit and stayed all of the other cases filed against Imagitas pending an appellate decision in Rine. On August 27, 2008, the Rine plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The appellate process in this case is proceeding.

76

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002). On September 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in the company’s favor in this patent litigation. Unless Ricoh successfully petitions the United States Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, this case is concluded.

Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828 (United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida). On April 9, 2008, the District Court granted Imagitas’ motion for summary judgment in one of the coordinated cases, Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006). On July 30, 2008, the court issued a final judgment on the Rine litigation and stayed all of the other cases filed against Imagitas pending an appellate decision on the Rine litigation. On August 27, 2008, the plaintiffs in the Rine litigation, filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision. The appellate process in this case is proceeding.

We expect to prevail in these lawsuits; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828 (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida). On April 9, 2008, the court granted Imagitas’ motion for summary judgment in one of the consolidated cases, Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006). On July 30, 2008, the court issued a final judgment on the Rine litigation and stayed all of the other cases filed against Imagitas pending an appellate decision on the Rine litigation. As a result of the Court’s final judgment in Rine, the time for the plaintiffs to appeal begins, and the Company expects the plaintiffs to file an appeal. We expect to prevail in these lawsuits; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

This item updates the legal proceedings more fully described in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed February 29, 2008.

Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002). In this patent litigation where the company prevailed at trial, the appellate process is proceeding.

Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828 (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida). On April 9, 2008, the court granted Imagitas’ motion for summary judgment in one of the consolidated cases, Rine, et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006). The Company expects that the legal reasoning in the court’s opinion should apply to the other litigations filed against Imagitas and consolidated into this multi-district litigation. The decision ultimately may be appealed to the federal court of appeals.

We expect to prevail in both the Ricoh litigation and the lawsuits against Imagitas; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

26

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely defendants in or party to a number of pending and threatened legal actions. These may involve litigation by or against us relating to, among other things, contractual rights under vendor, insurance or other contracts; intellectual property or patent rights; equipment, service, payment or other disputes with customers; or disputes with employees. Some of these actions may be brought as a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of employees, customers or others.

We are a defendant in a patent action brought by Ricoh Company, Ltd. in which there are allegations of infringement against certain of our important mailing products, including the DM Series^TM. Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002). The plaintiff in this action is seeking both large damage and injunctive relief. We prevailed at the trial held in this matter in the fall of 2006. The jury found the Ricoh patents at issue to be invalid. Even though a finding of invalidity means that the plaintiff’s claim must fail, the jury was also required to rule on infringement and found that we infringed the Ricoh patents and did so willfully. As a result of the invalidity finding, we prevailed and no damages were awarded. The matter is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a defendant in ten purported class actions filed in six different states. These litigations have been consolidated into a single federal multi-district litigation in the United States District for the Middle District of Florida, In re: Imagitas, Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (Consolidated, May 28, 2007). Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas enters into contracts with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any state resident to any advertiser. The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages under the DPPA and an injunction against the continuation of the program. The plaintiffs have also sued state officials in four of the affected states, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio. Those suits have also been consolidated into the multi-district litigation. The state officials from Florida who were sued in their individual capacity have reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. As a result of that settlement,

72

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

This item updates the legal proceedings more fully described in our 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 1, 2007, and as updated in our Forms 10-Q filed May 4, 2007 and August 6, 2007.

Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002). In this patent litigation where the company prevailed at trial, the appellate process is proceeding.

Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828 (United States District Court, Middle District of Florida). In this Multi-District Litigation (MDL), expedited discovery has concluded on some discrete issues, and Imagitas has filed a motion for summary judgment. The state officials from Florida who were sued in their individual capacity have reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. As a result of that settlement, Imagitas has agreed to voluntarily suspend a portion of the program, pending a ruling in the litigation against it. During this period, Imagitas will still be placing advertisements in the registration renewal forms in Florida. The Multi-District Litigation panel denied the attempt by officials in Ohio, Missouri, and Minnesota to have the cases filed against them in their individual capacity removed from the MDL and returned to the respective courts where they were originally filed. The pendency of these litigations, regardless of their ultimate merit, may have a negative effect on the future prospects of the DriverSource program.

We expect to prevail in both the Ricoh litigation and the lawsuits against Imagitas; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

This item updates the legal proceedings more fully described in our 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 1, 2007, and as updated in our Form 10-Q filed May 4, 2007.

In Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002), the patent litigation where the company prevailed at trial, the court denied the parties’ post-trial motions. The Company expects that Ricoh will pursue an appeal. If so, the Company will need to pursue on appeal the issues on which it did not prevail at trial, even though the ultimate verdict was in our favor.

During the second quarter of 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the ten purported class actions filed against our subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc. alleging that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) before a single judge in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The cases are now jointly referred to as In re Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828. There have also been lawsuits filed against officials of the departments of motor vehicles in four of the states where the DriverSource program is active, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota and Ohio. The officials in states other than Florida are contesting the transfer of their cases and inclusion in the Multi-District Litigation. The pendency of these litigations, regardless of their ultimate merit, may have a negative effect on the future prospects of the DriverSource program.

We expect to prevail in both the Ricoh litigation and the lawsuits against Imagitas; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

This item updates the legal proceedings more fully described in our 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated March 1, 2007.

There have been no material developments in Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002), the patent litigation where the company prevailed at trial. Post-trial motions are currently pending before the trial court.

During the first quarter of 2007, an additional purported national class action was filed against our subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc. alleging that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Gentile v. Imagitas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, filed March 8, 2007). The federal panel on multi-district litigation held a hearing on our motion to consolidate the ten purported class actions that have now been filed against Imagitas. During the first quarter, there have also been lawsuits filed against officials of the departments of motor vehicles in four of the states where the DriverSource program is active, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota and Ohio. Imagitas is not a defendant in those cases but these may be consolidated into the same multi-district litigation if consolidation is granted.

We expect to prevail in both the Ricoh litigation and the lawsuits against Imagitas; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

23

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely defendants in or party to a number of pending and threatened legal actions. These may involve litigation by or against us relating to, among other things, contractual rights under vendor, insurance or other contracts; intellectual property or patent rights; equipment, service, payment or other disputes with customers; or disputes with employees.

We are a defendant in a patent action brought by Ricoh Company, Ltd. in which there are allegations of infringement against certain of our important mailing products, including the DM Series^TM. Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002). We prevailed at the trial held in this matter in the fall of 2006. The jury found the Ricoh patents at issue to be invalid. Even though a finding of invalidity means that the plaintiff’s claim must fail, the jury was also required to rule on infringement and found that the Company infringed the Ricoh patents and did so willfully. As a result of the invalidity finding, the Company prevailed and no damages were awarded. Currently post-verdict motions filed by both parties are pending before the court. The Company anticipates that Ricoh will ultimately appeal the verdict.

74

Item 1: Legal Proceedings

     This item updates the legal proceedings more fully described in our 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated March 13, 2006 and as updated in our first quarter Form 10-Q dated May 4, 2006. In .Ricoh Corporation et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. (United States District Court, District of New Jersey, filed November 26, 2002), the Court has now rescheduled the tentative trial date for October 30, 2006.

     We expect to prevail in this matter; however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable there can be no assurance in this regard, and if Ricoh does prevail, the result may have a material effect on our financial position, future results of operations or cash flows, including, for example, our ability to offer certain types of goods or services in the future.

     There were no other material changes to the legal proceedings disclosures made in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 regarding legal proceedings.