Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 28, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	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 July 28, 2012, these foundries had incurred approximately $256.3 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. *Contingencies* 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. Jasmine Networks Litigation. On September 12, 2001, Jasmine Networks, Inc. (“Jasmine”) filed a lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging claims against Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“MSI”) and three of its officers for allegedly improperly obtaining and using information and technologies during the course of the negotiations with its personnel regarding the potential acquisition of certain Jasmine assets by MSI. The case proceeded to trial on September 20, 2010. On November 24, 2010, a Santa Clara County jury returned a verdict in favor of MSI on all claims. On January 7, 2011, the court entered judgment in MSI’s favor. Pursuant to California Civil Procedure provisions, Jasmine filed motions for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. These motions were heard by the court on February 25, 2011 and denied in written orders. Jasmine has appealed and MSI is contesting the appeal vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Wage and Hour Class Action. On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton (“Holton”), a former employee of MSI, filed a civil complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Holton alleges that MSI misclassified him as an exempt employee. Holton claims that due to its misclassification MSI owes him unpaid wages for overtime, penalties for missed meal periods, and various other penalties under the California Labor Code, as well as interest. Holton also pursues a cause of action for unfair business practices under the California Business & Profession Code. Holton brought his complaint as a class action. On July 8, 2009, the court granted certification of the following class: “All Individual Contributor Engineers who held the title of PCB Designer, Associate Engineer, Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior Engineers, who at any time during the class period while holding these positions did not have a degree above a baccalaureate degree nor a degree above a baccalaureate degree in a field of science related to the work performed, and worked for MSI in California, at any time from October 19, 2002 through the present.” MSI disputed all of plaintiff’s class claims. On November 23, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement and plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 16, 2012. No class members objected to the settlement, and the Court approved the settlement at the final settlement approval hearing on July 6, 2012. The settlement amount, which was recorded in the Company’s financial statements in fiscal 2012, was not material to the Company’s results of operations. 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 Group II 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 Group II claims. A jury trial is set for November 26, 2012. MSI and the Company strongly dispute their liability and the damages claimed by CMU. MSI and the Company 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 procedural posture and the nature of the litigation, the Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit. USEI Litigation. On October 9, 2009, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (“USEI”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in which USEI has accused a number of system manufacturers, including the Company’s customers, of patent infringement (the “USEI litigation”). Specifically, USEI has asserted that these customers infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,307,459, 5,434,872, 5,732,094 and 5,299,313 (collectively, the “USEI patents in suit”), which purportedly relate to Ethernet technologies. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an injunction. On May 4, 2010, MSI filed a motion to intervene in the USEI litigation, which was granted on May 19, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the court issued an order granting the Defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California; the case was formally transferred on August 23, 2010. On September 14, 2011, USEI withdrew its allegations against MSI for the ‘459 patent. On October 21, 2011, the court conducted a claim construction hearing, and a ruling was issued on January 31, 2012. A supplemental claim construction hearing was held on May 3, 2012. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the USEI patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Lake Cherokee Patent Litigation. On June 30, 2010, Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies, L.L.C. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint names MSI and seven other defendants, and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,738 and 5,978,162 (collectively, the “Lake Cherokee patents in suit”). The Lake Cherokee patents in suit purportedly relate to read-channel integrated circuit devices, and allegedly, to certain unspecified HDD products incorporating such devices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims to the complaint on September 13, 2010. Defendants filed a motion to transfer on April 1, 2011, which was denied on February 13, 2012. Lake Cherokee filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2011. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint on May 9, 2011. A claim construction hearing was held on May 14, 2012, and a ruling was issued on August 6, 2012. Trial is set for August 5, 2013. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Lake Cherokee patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. APT Patent Litigations. On January 18, 2011, Advanced Processor Technologies, LLC (“APT”), a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp., filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint names MSI and eight other defendants and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,047,354 (“’354 patent”) and 5,796,978 (“’978 patent”). The asserted patents purportedly relate to microprocessor technologies. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. A first amended complaint was filed on January 26, 2011. The first amended complaint continues to assert the ‘354 patent against MSI, but appears to no longer assert the ‘978 patent against MSI. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on April 15, 2011. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for January 29, 2013, and jury selection is set for July 1, 2013. On March 23, 2012, APT filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that MSI infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,172 and 6,629,207. The asserted patents purportedly relate to microprocessor technologies. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on May 25, 2012. In both cases, ARM filed a motion to intervene on July 23, 2012 and a motion to transfer on July 27, 2012. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the APT patents in suit, and intends to litigate these actions vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. MOSAID Litigation. On March 16, 2011, MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed suit in the United States District for the Eastern District of Texas against MSI and 16 other companies. The complaint alleges that defendants’ products, which operate in compliance with the IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11n standards, infringe the six asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,131,006; 5,151,920; 5,422,887; 5,706,428; 6,563,768; 6,992,972). MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on June 9, 2011. On March 28, 2012, MSI and other defendants filed a motion to transfer. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for February 18, 2014 and jury selection is set for August 4, 2014. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the MOSAID patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Azure Networks Litigation. On March 22, 2011, Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against MSI and eight other companies. The Complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,756,129 against MSI’s Bluetooth products. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on July 20, 2011. On December 9, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue to S.D.N.Y. or, alternatively, to N.D. Cal., which was denied on June 25, 2012. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for November 29, 2012 and trial is set for November 12, 2013. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Azure Networks patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Power Management Systems Litigation. On August 22, 2011, Power Management Systems LLC (“PMS”), a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp., filed a complaint against the Company’s subsidiary Marvell Semiconductor, Ltd. (“MSL”) and three other defendants, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,504,909, which purportedly relates to a power management apparatus, against various products. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 17, 2011, PMS amended its complaint by substituting MSL with MSI. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on November 4, 2011. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for January 18, 2013 and trial is set for March 3, 2014. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the PMS’ patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. HSM/TPL Litigation. On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio, LLC and Technology Properties Limited, LLC filed a complaint against the Company and MSL in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint also named numerous other defendants. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,030,853, purportedly relating to high speed logic and memory circuitry, against various products. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On January 9, 2012, HSM/TPL filed an amended complaint adding MSI to the case. On February 15, 2012, the Company and MSL were dismissed from the case. On July 18, 2012, HSM filed a second amended complaint against MSI, and MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on August 13, 2012. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the HSM/TPL patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. France Telecom Litigation. On June 26, 2012, France Telecom S.A. (“France Telecom”) filed a complaint against MSI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No 5,446,747 (the “’747 patent”) against MSI’s communications processors and thin modems. The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as injunctive relief. MSI answered the complaint on July 18, 2012 and August 1, 2012. On July 30, 2012, MSI filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Trial is set for January 3, 2013. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘747 patent, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Freescale Litigation. On July 6, 2012, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) filed a complaint against MSI in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 6,920,316, 5,825,640, 5,943,274, 5,467,455 and 7,927,927 (collectively, the “Freescale patents in suit”) against certain of the Company’s integrated circuits and/or chipsets. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Freescale patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. General. The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. The legal proceedings and claims described above could result in substantial costs and could divert the attention and resources of the Company’s management. Although the legal responsibility and financial impact with respect to each of these proceedings and claims cannot currently be ascertained, an unfavorable outcome in any of such actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s cash flows. As to each of the ongoing legal matters mentioned above, the Company is unable to predict its outcome and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling in litigation could require the Company to pay damages or one-time license fees or royalty payments and could prevent the Company from manufacturing or selling some of its products or limit or restrict the type of work that employees involved in such litigation may perform for the Company, any of which could adversely affect financial results in future periods. The Company believes that it competes lawfully and that its marketing, business and intellectual property benefit its customers and shareholders, and it will continue to conduct a vigorous defense in these proceedings. There can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved in a manner that is not adverse to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. *Indemnities, Commitments and Guarantees* During its normal course of business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These indemnities include intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers in connection with the sales of its products, indemnities for liabilities associated with the infringement of other parties’ technology based upon the Company’s products, indemnities to various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facility or lease, and indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of Bermuda. In addition, the Company has contractual commitments to various customers, which could require the Company to incur costs to repair an epidemic defect with respect to its products outside of the normal warranty period if such defect were to occur. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies, and in certain cases, is indefinite. Some of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments that the Company could be obligated to make. In general, the Company does not record any liability for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as the amounts, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company does, however, accrue for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable.

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 July 28, 2012, these foundries had incurred approximately $256.3 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.

Contingencies

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.

Jasmine Networks Litigation. On September 12, 2001, Jasmine Networks, Inc. (“Jasmine”) filed a lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging claims against Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“MSI”) and three of its officers for allegedly improperly obtaining and using information and technologies during the course of the negotiations with its personnel regarding the potential acquisition of certain Jasmine assets by MSI.

The case proceeded to trial on September 20, 2010. On November 24, 2010, a Santa Clara County jury returned a verdict in favor of MSI on all claims. On January 7, 2011, the court entered judgment in MSI’s favor. Pursuant to California Civil Procedure provisions, Jasmine filed motions for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. These motions were heard by the court on February 25, 2011 and denied in written orders. Jasmine has appealed and MSI is contesting the appeal vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Wage and Hour Class Action. On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton (“Holton”), a former employee of MSI, filed a civil complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Holton alleges that MSI misclassified him as an exempt employee. Holton claims that due to its misclassification MSI owes him unpaid wages for overtime, penalties for missed meal periods, and various other penalties under the California Labor Code, as well as interest. Holton also pursues a cause of action for unfair business practices under the California Business & Profession Code. Holton brought his complaint as a class action. On July 8, 2009, the court granted certification of the following class: “All Individual Contributor Engineers who held the title of PCB Designer, Associate Engineer, Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior Engineers, who at any time during the class period while holding these positions did not have a degree above a baccalaureate degree nor a degree above a baccalaureate degree in a field of science related to the work performed, and worked for MSI in California, at any time from October 19, 2002 through the present.” MSI disputed all of plaintiff’s class claims. On November 23, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement and plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 16, 2012. No class members objected to the settlement, and the Court approved the settlement at the final settlement approval hearing on July 6, 2012. The settlement amount, which was recorded in the Company’s financial statements in fiscal 2012, was not material to the Company’s results of operations.

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 Group II 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 Group II claims. A jury trial is set for November 26, 2012. MSI and the Company strongly dispute their liability and the damages claimed by CMU. MSI and the Company 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 procedural posture and the nature of the litigation, the Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit.

USEI Litigation. On October 9, 2009, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (“USEI”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in which USEI has accused a number of system manufacturers, including the Company’s customers, of patent infringement (the “USEI litigation”). Specifically, USEI has asserted that these customers infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,307,459, 5,434,872, 5,732,094 and 5,299,313 (collectively, the “USEI patents in suit”), which purportedly relate to Ethernet technologies. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an injunction.

On May 4, 2010, MSI filed a motion to intervene in the USEI litigation, which was granted on May 19, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the court issued an order granting the Defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California; the case was formally transferred on August 23, 2010. On September 14, 2011, USEI withdrew its allegations against MSI for the ‘459 patent. On October 21, 2011, the court conducted a claim construction hearing, and a ruling was issued on January 31, 2012. A supplemental claim construction hearing was held on May 3, 2012. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the USEI patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Lake Cherokee Patent Litigation. On June 30, 2010, Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies, L.L.C. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint names MSI and seven other defendants, and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,738 and 5,978,162 (collectively, the “Lake Cherokee patents in suit”). The Lake Cherokee patents in suit purportedly relate to read-channel integrated circuit devices, and allegedly, to certain unspecified HDD products incorporating such devices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims to the complaint on September 13, 2010. Defendants filed a motion to transfer on April 1, 2011, which was denied on February 13, 2012. Lake Cherokee filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2011. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims to the amended complaint on May 9, 2011. A claim construction hearing was held on May 14, 2012, and a ruling was issued on August 6, 2012. Trial is set for August 5, 2013. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Lake Cherokee patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

APT Patent Litigations. On January 18, 2011, Advanced Processor Technologies, LLC (“APT”), a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp., filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint names MSI and eight other defendants and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,047,354 (“’354 patent”) and 5,796,978 (“’978 patent”). The asserted patents purportedly relate to microprocessor technologies. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. A first amended complaint was filed on January 26, 2011. The first amended complaint continues to assert the ‘354 patent against MSI, but appears to no longer assert the ‘978 patent against MSI. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on April 15, 2011. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for January 29, 2013, and jury selection is set for July 1, 2013. On March 23, 2012, APT filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that MSI infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,172 and 6,629,207. The asserted patents purportedly relate to microprocessor technologies. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on May 25, 2012. In both cases, ARM filed a motion to intervene on July 23, 2012 and a motion to transfer on July 27, 2012. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the APT patents in suit, and intends to litigate these actions vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

MOSAID Litigation. On March 16, 2011, MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed suit in the United States District for the Eastern District of Texas against MSI and 16 other companies. The complaint alleges that defendants’ products, which operate in compliance with the IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11n standards, infringe the six asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,131,006; 5,151,920; 5,422,887; 5,706,428; 6,563,768; 6,992,972). MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on June 9, 2011. On March 28, 2012, MSI and other defendants filed a motion to transfer. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for February 18, 2014 and jury selection is set for August 4, 2014. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the MOSAID patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Azure Networks Litigation. On March 22, 2011, Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against MSI and eight other companies. The Complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,756,129 against MSI’s Bluetooth products. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on July 20, 2011. On December 9, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue to S.D.N.Y. or, alternatively, to N.D. Cal., which was denied on June 25, 2012. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for November 29, 2012 and trial is set for November 12, 2013. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Azure Networks patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Power Management Systems Litigation. On August 22, 2011, Power Management Systems LLC (“PMS”), a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp., filed a complaint against the Company’s subsidiary Marvell Semiconductor, Ltd. (“MSL”) and three other defendants, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,504,909, which purportedly relates to a power management apparatus, against various products. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 17, 2011, PMS amended its complaint by substituting MSL with MSI. MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on November 4, 2011. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for January 18, 2013 and trial is set for March 3, 2014. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the PMS’ patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

HSM/TPL Litigation. On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio, LLC and Technology Properties Limited, LLC filed a complaint against the Company and MSL in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint also named numerous other defendants. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,030,853, purportedly relating to high speed logic and memory circuitry, against various products. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On January 9, 2012, HSM/TPL filed an amended complaint adding MSI to the case. On February 15, 2012, the Company and MSL were dismissed from the case. On July 18, 2012, HSM filed a second amended complaint against MSI, and MSI filed its answer and counterclaims on August 13, 2012. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the HSM/TPL patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

France Telecom Litigation. On June 26, 2012, France Telecom S.A. (“France Telecom”) filed a complaint against MSI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No 5,446,747 (the “’747 patent”) against MSI’s communications processors and thin modems. The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as injunctive relief. MSI answered the complaint on July 18, 2012 and August 1, 2012. On July 30, 2012, MSI filed a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Trial is set for January 3, 2013. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘747 patent, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Freescale Litigation. On July 6, 2012, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) filed a complaint against MSI in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 6,920,316, 5,825,640, 5,943,274, 5,467,455 and 7,927,927 (collectively, the “Freescale patents in suit”) against certain of the Company’s integrated circuits and/or chipsets. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. MSI believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Freescale patents in suit, and intends to litigate this action vigorously. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

General. The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the normal course of business. The legal proceedings and claims described above could result in substantial costs and could divert the attention and resources of the Company’s management. Although the legal responsibility and financial impact with respect to each of these proceedings and claims cannot currently be ascertained, an unfavorable outcome in any of such actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s cash flows. As to each of the ongoing legal matters mentioned above, the Company is unable to predict its outcome and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling in litigation could require the Company to pay damages or one-time license fees or royalty payments and could prevent the Company from manufacturing or selling some of its products or limit or restrict the type of work that employees involved in such litigation may perform for the Company, any of which could adversely affect financial results in future periods. The Company believes that it competes lawfully and that its marketing, business and intellectual property benefit its customers and shareholders, and it will continue to conduct a vigorous defense in these proceedings. There can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved in a manner that is not adverse to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Indemnities, Commitments and Guarantees

During its normal course of business, the Company has made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These indemnities include intellectual property indemnities to the Company’s customers in connection with the sales of its products, indemnities for liabilities associated with the infringement of other parties’ technology based upon the Company’s products, indemnities to various lessors in connection with facility leases for certain claims arising from such facility or lease, and indemnities to directors and officers of the Company to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of Bermuda. In addition, the Company has contractual commitments to various customers, which could require the Company to incur costs to repair an epidemic defect with respect to its products outside of the normal warranty period if such defect were to occur. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies, and in certain cases, is indefinite. Some of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments that the Company could be obligated to make. In general, the Company does not record any liability for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as the amounts, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company does, however, accrue for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable.