Litigation

We and certain of our subsidiaries are currently parties to various legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. Unless otherwise noted below, during the period presented we have not: recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with such legal proceedings; determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable or reasonably possible; or determined that the amount or range of any possible loss is reasonably estimable. We are engaged in numerous other legal actions not described below arising in the ordinary course of our business and, while there can be no assurance, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity or financial position.

From time to time we may conclude it is in the best interests of our shareholders, employees, and customers to settle one or more litigation matters, and any such settlement could include substantial payments; however, other than as noted below, we have not reached this conclusion with respect to any particular matter at this time. There are a variety of factors that influence our decisions to settle and the amount we may choose to pay, including the strength of our case, developments in the litigation, the behavior of other interested parties, the demand on management time and the possible distraction of our employees associated with the case and/or the possibility that we may be subject to an injunction or other equitable remedy. It is difficult to predict whether a settlement is possible, the amount of an appropriate settlement or when is the opportune time to settle a matter in light of the numerous factors that go into the settlement decision.

Intellectual Property Proceedings

In September 2009 we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, alleging infringement of ten patents generally relating to networking technologies. In subsequent filings, we added two additional patents and withdrew six patents, bringing the total to six asserted patents: U.S. Patents Nos. 7,058,150; 7,471,691; 7,450,500; 6,424,194; 7,486,124, and 7,724,057 (referred to as the Asserted Patents). In its answers, Emulex denied liability and asserted counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the Asserted Patents are invalid and not infringed. A trial occurred in September and October 2011, and the Court heard post-trial motions in December 2011. The Court found that the Asserted Patents are not invalid. The Court further found Emulex infringed the ‘150 and ‘691 patents. In March 2012, the Court granted Broadcom’s motion for an injunction on the ‘150 and ‘691 patents and in April 2012, the Court entered an injunction against Emulex. Emulex filed an appeal of the Court’s rulings on the ‘150 and ‘691 patents to the Federal Circuit. On the remaining Asserted Patents, the jury found the ‘500 patent was not infringed and failed to reach a verdict on infringement for the ‘194, ‘124, and ‘057 patents. The Court has scheduled a new trial regarding the ‘194, ‘124, and ‘057 patents for April 2013.

On July 3, 2012, Broadcom and Emulex entered into a partial settlement and license agreement for the Asserted Patents. Under the terms of the agreement, the parties dismissed their respective claims on the ‘691 and ‘500 patents, Emulex received a license and release related to the Asserted Patents for certain products for certain fields of use and Emulex was required to make a payment of certain amounts to Broadcom. The litigation proceedings for the ‘150, ‘194, ‘124, and ‘057 patents will continue relating to Emulex’s unlicensed activity.

In November 2009 we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO, seeking a declaratory judgment that a certain U.S. patent number is invalid, unenforceable and not infringed. CSIRO answered the complaint and counterclaimed for infringement against Broadcom wireless LAN products and sought damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction. Following a court ordered mediation session in March 2012, Broadcom and CSIRO entered into a settlement agreement resolving the litigation and the Court dismissed the parties’ claims with prejudice. The terms of the settlement agreement included a full release from liability for all asserted claims, the grant of a perpetual license under the asserted patent and all related patents to Broadcom, and the payment of certain amounts by Broadcom.

In August 2010, we filed a motion to intervene (i.e., to be added as a party) in U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03724-JW (N.D. Cal.). In this case, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC, or USEI, filed a patent infringement complaint alleging that numerous companies, including certain of our customers, infringe patents relating generally to Ethernet technology. USEI seeks monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction. Defendants have filed answers denying the allegations in USEI’s complaint and asserting counterclaims for declaratory judgment that USEI’s patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. We contend that we have a license related to USEI’s patents and are seeking to assert this license as a defense. In December 2010, the Court granted our motion to intervene. No trial date has been set.

We and our subsidiaries are also involved in other intellectual property proceedings, claims and litigation. We will disclose the nature of any such matter if we believe it to be material. Particularly in the early stages of such proceedings, an assessment of materiality may be complicated by limited information, including, without limitation, limited information about the patents-in-suit and Broadcom products against which the patents are being asserted. Accordingly, our assessment of materiality may change in the future based upon availability of discovery and further developments in the proceedings at issue. Some of these intellectual property proceedings may involve, for example, “non-practicing entities” asserting claims addressing certain of our products. The resolution of intellectual property litigation can include, among other things, payment of damages, royalties, or other amounts, which could adversely, impact our product gross margins in future periods, or could prevent us from manufacturing or selling some of our products or limit or restrict the type of work that employees may perform for us. In addition, from time to time we are approached by holders of intellectual property, including non-practicing entities, to engage in discussions about our obtaining licenses to their intellectual property. We will disclose the nature of any such discussion if we determine that (i) it is probable an intellectual property holder will assert a claim of infringement, (ii) there is a reasonable possibility the outcome (assuming assertion) will be unfavorable, and (iii) the resulting liability would be material to our financial condition.

Other Proceedings

In November 2009 Emulex filed a complaint in the Central District of California against us alleging violation of the antitrust laws, defamation, and unfair competition. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees. In January 2010, Emulex filed an amended complaint in which Emulex removed, among other things, the claim of unfair competition. In February 2010, we filed motions to dismiss the case and a motion to strike. In June 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss and denied our motion to strike. In April 2012, the Court granted a joint stipulation to dismiss Emulex’s antitrust, defamation, and unfair competition case against us without prejudice. Under the July 3, 2012 agreement referenced above, Emulex released these claims against Broadcom.

In April 2008 we delivered a Notice of Arbitration and Arbitration Claim to our former independent registered public accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP, or E&Y, and certain related parties. The arbitration relates to the issues that led to the restatement of our financial statements for the periods from 1998 through March 31, 2006 as disclosed in an amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31, 2006, each filed with the SEC January 23, 2007. In May 2008 E&Y delivered a Notice of Defense and Counterclaim. The arbitration hearing has been scheduled for January 2013.

In September 2011, two lawsuits were filed by stockholders of NetLogic purporting to assert claims arising from our entry into a definitive merger agreement with NetLogic under which a subsidiary of Broadcom, I&N Acquisition Corp., was to be merged with and into NetLogic. On November 11, 2011, all parties to these actions, captioned New Jersey Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Broyles et al., (Cal. Super. Ct. County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-11-CV-209381) (referred to as the California Action), and Danielo v. NetLogic Microsystems, et al., (Del. Ct. of Chancery, Case No. 6881-VCG) (referred to as the Delaware Action), executed a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, respecting a proposed settlement of the claims in each of those actions. The California court entered a final order approving the settlement, and the Delaware court has dismissed the case with prejudice. The terms of the settlement required NetLogic to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the merger in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC by NetLogic on November 14, 2011, and the payment by NetLogic of attorneys fees’ and costs to counsel representing the plaintiffs in the amount of $795,000.

In February 2012 we were notified by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement - Los Angeles Regional office that it is conducting a formal investigation of our accounting practices related to litigation reserves. The SEC has requested documents and information for the time period commencing June 1, 2010 to the present. We believe that the SEC’s investigation was prompted by allegations of a former employee relating to our processes and decisions regarding litigation reserves in the first quarter of 2011 in connection with asserted and unasserted intellectual property claims. Following our receipt of these allegations in April 2011, we, with oversight from the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, conducted an internal review of these allegations with the assistance of independent outside counsel and did not identify any improprieties. This investigation was completed during the three months ended June 30, 2011. In addition, based on the internal review, the results of which were discussed with the our independent registered public accounting firm, we determined that no adjustments to our fiscal 2010 and March 31, 2011 consolidated financial statements were necessary relating to the subject matter of the review. We are cooperating with the SEC’s investigation.

In July 2012, a former employee filed a lawsuit against us alleging wrongful termination in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and fundamental public policy under state law. The former employee alleges that he was terminated in June 2011 because he raised concerns that Broadcom did not appropriately accrue for and report certain loss contingencies in the three months ended March 31, 2011. We believe the lawsuit is without merit.

General

We and our subsidiaries are also involved in other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We will disclose the nature of any such matter if we believe it to be material.

The pending proceedings described above involve complex questions of fact and law and may require the expenditure of significant funds and the diversion of other resources to prosecute and defend. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. From time to time we may enter into confidential discussions regarding the potential settlement of pending intellectual property or other litigation or other proceedings; however, there can be no assurance that any such discussions will occur or will result in a settlement. In the course of such settlement discussions, if we conclude that a settlement loss is probable and the settlement amount is estimable we may record settlement costs, notwithstanding not having reached a final settlement agreement. The settlement of any pending litigation or other proceedings could require us to incur substantial settlement payments and costs. Furthermore, the settlement of any intellectual property proceeding may require us to grant a license to certain of our intellectual property rights to the other party under a cross-license agreement. If any of those events were to occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. See Note 1 for an additional discussion of our accounting policy under “Litigation and Settlement Costs”.