Litigation and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Litigation and Contingencies	Jul. 31, 2023
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, 2023, 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. 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 claims are pending against HPE. Because the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification of the putative nationwide ADEA collectives, a third-party administrator notified eligible former employees of their right to opt into the ADEA collective. This opt-in period closed on February 15, 2022. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, punitive damages, and other relief. In June 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter. The parties are negotiating a formal settlement agreement that, if finalized, would be submitted to the District Court for approval. The case is presently stayed until a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement set for October 26, 2023. 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 ordered 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. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses. 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. Caltech Patent Litigation. On November 11, 2020, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in the federal court for the Western District of Texas. On March 19, 2021, Caltech filed an amendment to this same complaint. The complaint as amended alleges infringement of five of Caltech’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,716,552; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833. The accused products are HP commercial and consumer PCs as well as wireless printers that comply with the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards. Caltech seeks unspecified damages and other relief. In August 2021, the court stayed the case pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in The California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd et al., Case No. 2020-2222, which was issued on February 4, 2022, and a request for further review of that decision by the Supreme Court was denied. On August 16, 2023, the parties informed the court that the stay should be lifted on September 5, 2023. In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation (Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al.). On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted HP’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. The parties settled and the motion for preliminary approval of settlement was filed on March 3, 2023. Under the terms of the settlement, HP agreed to pay an amount that is immaterial to HP. The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on April 7, 2023. On September 6, 2023, the court issued an order approving the settlement and directing entry of final judgment. 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. 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 June 27, 2023, the district court issued an order setting the briefing schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss. 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. Both derivative actions will remain stayed while the district court considers on remand HP’s other arguments for dismissal. 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 Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, Australia and New Zealand have been resolved, have concluded, or have concluded subject only to HP’s pending appeal. Civil litigation filed by Digital Revolution B.V. (trading as 123Inkt) against HP Nederlands B.V., et al. (Netherlands) in March 2020, including its competition claim, remains pending. Both parties have appealed. In addition, two putative class actions have been filed against HP in federal court in California, in December 2020 and April 2022, arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates in HP Laserjet printers and HP Inkjet printers, respectively. Plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair business practices, and other relief. In the case directed to Laserjet printers, plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. The case involving Inkjet printers remains in its early stages. Autonomy-Related Legal Matters Investigations. As a result of the findings of an internal investigation, HP provided information to government authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) related to accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred before and in connection with HP’s 2011 acquisition of Autonomy. In November 2016, a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, former CFO of Autonomy on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleged that Mr. Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about Autonomy’s true financial performance and condition. On April 30, 2018, a jury found Mr. Hussain guilty of all charges against him, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal in August 2020. In November 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Michael Lynch, former CEO of Autonomy, and Stephen Chamberlain, former VP of Finance of Autonomy. The indictment charged Mr. Lynch and Mr. Chamberlain with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud. On January 28, 2022, the U.K. Home Office approved U.S. demands to have Mr. Lynch extradited to face the charges. Mr. Lynch’s request for permission to appeal this decision was denied on April 21, 2023, and Mr. Lynch has been extradited to the United States. Trial on the charges against Mr. Lynch and Mr. Chamberlain is set to begin on March 18, 2024, in federal court in the Northern District of California. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions. Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four former HP 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.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. Trial was completed in January 2020. On May 17, 2022, the court issued its final judgment, memorializing its findings that HP succeeded in substantially all of its claims and that Messrs. Lynch and Hussein engaged in fraud, and dismissing Mr. Lynch’s counterclaim. The court deferred its assessment of damages to a later, separate judgment to be issued after further submissions, but it has indicated that damages awarded may be substantially less than is claimed. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages or as to how any award of damages will compare with the amount claimed. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery. 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.