MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies
Under the Companys 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 Companys outstanding purchase orders.
Intellectual Property Indemnification
The Company has agreed to indemnify certain customers for claims made against the Companys 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 customers attorneys fees and costs. The Companys 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 Companys 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
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 Companys 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 plaintiffs 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 Circuits 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 Circuits opinion and without prejudice as to all other issues.