Costs incurred

[Table of Contents](#i43adbcd383bc4dc48977980bcb999d17_79) HP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)  
  
Note 14: 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 October 31, 2021, 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, 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 InvestigationsCopyright 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 environment and certain requirements for business sales exemptions, and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders.Based on industry opposition to the extension of 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.Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation. On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission-critical servers. HP asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. In the first phase of the bifurcated trial, the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. In the second phase, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. The court entered judgment for HP for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle appealed the trial court’s judgment and HP filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s judgment and its denial of prejudgment interest to HP. Oracle filed a petition with the California Supreme Court for review, which was denied on September 29, 2021. On October 12, 2021, Oracle paid approximately $4.65 billion to satisfy the judgment with interest. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, HP recorded approximately $2.3 billion as a gain (Interest and other, net) in relation to the damages awarded, representing HP’s interest in the amount recovered, which is being shared equally between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, less $47.4 million reimbursed to Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the Separation. Oracle has until December 28, 2021 to file a petition for certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court for review. Review by the United States Supreme Court is discretionary, and HP believes the likelihood the award of damages will be reduced or reversed is remote.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 106
