Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD filed this Form 10-Q on 11/29/2012
Entire Document

Table of Contents




Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

Under the Company’s manufacturing relationships with its foundry partners, cancellation of all outstanding purchase orders are allowed but require payment of all costs and expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. As of October 27, 2012, these foundries had incurred approximately $160.9 million of manufacturing costs and expenses related to the Company’s outstanding purchase orders.

Intellectual Property Indemnification

The Company has agreed to indemnify certain customers for claims made against the Company’s products, where such claims allege infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, patents, registered trademarks and/or copyrights. Under the aforementioned indemnification clauses, the Company may be obligated to defend the customer and pay for the damages awarded against the customer under an infringement claim as well as the customer’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company’s indemnification obligations generally do not expire after termination or expiration of the agreement containing the indemnification obligation. In certain cases, there are limits on and exceptions to the Company’s potential liability for indemnification. Although historically the Company has not made significant payments under these indemnification obligations, the Company cannot estimate the amount of potential future payments, if any, that it might be required to make as a result of these agreements. The maximum potential amount of any future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations could be significant.


Carnegie Mellon Litigation. On March 6, 2009, Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania naming MSI and the Company as defendants and alleging patent infringement. CMU has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180 (collectively, the “CMU patents in suit”), which purportedly relate to read-channel integrated circuit devices and the HDD products incorporating such devices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an injunction. On June 1, 2009, MSI and the Company filed their answers and MSI filed counterclaims to the complaint seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity as to both of the asserted patents. The claim construction hearing was held on April 12 and 13, 2010. On April 29, 2010, MSI and the Company filed their amended answers and counterclaims. The Court issued a Markman ruling on October 1, 2010. MSI and the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity on December 22, 2010, which was denied on September 28, 2011. MSI and the Company filed a second motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity on November 2, 2011, which was denied on April 10, 2012. On April 20, 2012, MSI and the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment of no infringement and no damages with respect to extraterritorial conduct, a summary judgment motion of no infringement and no damages with respect to licensed use and a summary judgment motion of non-infringement regarding certain claims. A hearing on summary judgment motions was held on July 10 and 11, 2012. On August 24, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion of no infringement and no damages with respect to extraterritorial conduct; granted in part and denied in part the motion of no infringement and no damages with respect to licensed use; and granted the motion of non-infringement regarding certain claims. A jury trial began on November 26, 2012. In pre-trial proceedings, CMU alleged past damages in the amount of approximately $1.2 billion through July 2012, and also seeks enhanced damages, ongoing royalties, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. MSI and the Company strongly dispute their liability and the damages claimed by CMU, and further believe that they do not infringe any valid and enforceable claims of the asserted CMU patents in suit and intend to litigate this action vigorously (including any potential appeal, as necessary). Based on the nature of the litigation, the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Section 16(b) Litigation. On October 9, 2007, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a complaint for violation of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, which prohibits short swing trading, against the Company’s IPO underwriters. The complaint Vanessa Simmonds v. The Goldman Sachs Group, et al., Case No. C07-1632 filed in District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeks the recovery of short swing profits. The Company is named as a nominal defendant only, and no recovery is sought from the Company. In March 2009, the district court granted a motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants, which caused the case against the Company to be dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in December 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded to the district court. On January 25, 2011, the Ninth Circuit entered an order staying the mandate pending the filing of petitions for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court by the underwriter defendants. Both sides have filed petitions for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s writ, but granted the underwriters’ writ, which argued that the case should have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. On March 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case. The Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision and held that the two-year statute of limitations for actions under Section 16(b) is not automatically subject to equitable tolling pending the filing of the public disclosure statement required by Section 16(a) of the Act. On May 15, 2012, the Ninth Circuit entered an order remanding the cases of the non-moving issuer defendants (including the Company) to the District Court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court and dismissing with prejudice the cases of the moving issuer defendants. On June 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal in the District Court, dismissing the action against the Company with prejudice as to the adequacy of the pre-suit demand letters in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and without prejudice as to all other issues.