Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended |
Feb. 01, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Note 10 — Commitments and Contingencies: |
Warranty Obligations |
The Company’s products carry a standard 90 day warranty with certain exceptions in which the warranty period can extend to more than one year based on contractual agreements. The Company’s warranty expense has not been significant in the periods presented. |
Lease Commitments |
The Company leases some of its facilities, equipment and computer aided design software under non-cancelable operating leases. Rent expense, net of sublease income for fiscal 2014, 2013 and 2012 was approximately $25.8 million, $23.7 million and $20.5 million, respectively. The Company also purchases certain intellectual property under technology license obligations. Future minimum lease payments, net of estimated sublease, and payments under technology license obligations as of February 1, 2014, are presented in the following tables (in thousands): |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fiscal Year: | | Minimum | | | Sublease | | | Net | |
Lease | Income | Operating |
Payments | | Leases |
2015 | | $ | 75,678 | | | $ | (72 | ) | | $ | 75,606 | |
2016 | | | 61,774 | | | | (75 | ) | | | 61,699 | |
2017 | | | 32,751 | | | | (46 | ) | | | 32,705 | |
2018 | | | 6,455 | | | | — | | | | 6,455 | |
2019 | | | 1,150 | | | | — | | | | 1,150 | |
Thereafter | | | 1,785 | | | | — | | | | 1,785 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total future minimum lease payments | | $ | 179,593 | | | $ | (193 | ) | | $ | 179,400 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fiscal Year: | | Technology | | | | | | | | | |
License | | | | | | | | |
Obligations | | | | | | | | |
2015 | | $ | 14,913 | | | | | | | | | |
2016 | | | 13,145 | | | | | | | | | |
2017 | | | 7,869 | | | | | | | | | |
2018 | | | 9,180 | | | | | | | | | |
2019 | | | — | | | | | | | | | |
Thereafter | | | — | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total future minimum lease payments | | $ | 45,107 | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Less: amount representing interest | | | (2,027 | ) | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Present value of future minimum payments | | | 43,080 | | | | | | | | | |
Less: current portion | | | (14,121 | ) | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Non-current portion | | $ | 28,959 | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Technology license obligations include the liabilities under the subscription agreements for technology licenses between the Company and various vendors. |
|
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 February 1, 2014, these foundries had incurred approximately $270.9 million of manufacturing costs and expenses relating 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. Generally, 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 |
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are currently parties to various legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. The legal proceedings and claims described below could result in substantial costs and could divert the attention and resources of the Company’s management. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling in litigation could require the Company to pay damages, one-time license fees or ongoing 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 its products do not infringe valid and enforceable claims and it will continue to conduct a vigorous defense in these proceedings. However, 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. |
As of February 1, 2014, the Company has a $15.2 million accrued liability related to certain legal proceedings described below in this section. The amount recorded does not relate to the litigation with Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”). Other than for the matters that the Company has recognized in the consolidated financial statements, it has not recorded any amounts for contingent losses associated with the matters described below based on its belief that losses, while reasonably possible, are not probable. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. |
Carnegie Mellon University Litigation. On March 6, 2009, CMU filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania naming Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“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 relate to read-channel integrated circuit devices and the hard disk drive (“HDD”) incorporating such devices. A jury trial began on November 26, 2012. On December 26, 2012, a jury delivered a verdict that found the CMU patents in suit were literally and willfully infringed and valid, and awarded past damages in the amount of $1.17 billion. Due to the finding of willfulness during post-trial proceedings, the judge could enhance the damages by an amount up to triple the damages awarded by the jury at trial. In addition, CMU has disclosed in its post-trial motions that it is seeking pre-judgment interest up to $322 million, post-judgment interest, supplemental damages, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction and/or ongoing royalties. Post-trial motions were heard on May 1 and 2, 2013. On June 26, 2013, the District Court denied CMU’s post-trial motion for attorney fees without prejudice. On August 23, 2013, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for mistrial. On September 23, 2013, the District Court denied the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on non-infringement, invalidity and other non-damages issue as well as the Company’s motion for reduced damages. On the same day, the District Court granted-in-part CMU’s motion for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages, reserving its further rulings on any enhancement of the verdict for a forthcoming opinion. On December 6, 2013, CMU filed a motion to permit registration of judgment and a motion for supplemental relief including a request to enjoin future share repurchases, any leveraged buyout or similar asset leveraging transaction, and dividends (including the dividend scheduled for December 23rd), in the absence of a court approved bond or other security. On December 23, 2013, the District Court denied the motions. On January 8, 2014, CMU filed a motion for telephonic status conference, which was denied on January 28, 2014. On January 14, 2014, the District Court denied the Company’s post-trial motion on laches. The District Court has yet to rule on CMU’s injunction motion. The Company expects the District Court to issue its final judgment at any time. |
The Company and MSI believe that the evidence and the law do not support the jury’s findings of infringement, validity and the award of damages and do not believe a material loss is probable. The Company believes that there are strong grounds for appeal and the Company and MSI intend to vigorously challenge the District Court’s judgment via an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. The Company believes the low end of the possible range of loss is zero, but it cannot reasonably estimate the upper range of the possible loss, as a number of factors (including finalization of the post-trial motions at the District Court) could significantly change the assessment of damages. |
Jasmine Networks Litigation. On September 12, 2001, Jasmine Networks, Inc. (“Jasmine”) filed a lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging claims against 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. Oral arguments on the appeal were heard on June 18, 2013. On July 17, 2013, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed judgment in favor of MSI. The deadline for Jasmine to appeal to the California Supreme Court passed on August 26, 2013 without Jasmine taking any further action. |
USEI Litigation. On October 9, 2009, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (“USEI”) filed a complaint in the U.S. 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, which 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 District Court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for 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. The court issued a first claim construction ruling on January 31, 2012 and a supplemental claim construction ruling on August 29, 2012. On August 16, 2013, the District Court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion to preclude the plaintiff from recovering certain pre-suit damages. Trial is scheduled for January 5, 2015. |
Lake Cherokee Patent I Litigation. On June 30, 2010, Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies, L.L.C. (“Lake Cherokee”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,738 and 5,978,162 (collectively, the “Lake Cherokee patents”). The Lake Cherokee patents purportedly relate to read-channel integrated circuit devices and to certain HDD products incorporating such devices. A claim construction ruling was issued on August 6, 2012. Lake Cherokee’s damages claim, which excluded non-U.S. related sales as a result of the District Court’s summary judgment ruling, was approximately $193 million at the start of trial. The case proceeded to trial on August 12, 2013. On August 16, 2013, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a verdict and unanimously found that MSI did not infringe the Lake Cherokee patents. On the same day, the Court entered judgment in MSI’s favor. Lake Cherokee has since moved for a new trial and the briefing was concluded on October 28, 2013. The District Court has not ruled on Lake Cherokee’s post-trial motion. |
Lake Cherokee II Patent Litigation. On September 5, 2013, Lake Cherokee filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Marvell Asia Pte., Ltd. (“MAPL”) and several of the Company’s storage customers, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,738 and 5,978,162 (the same Lake Cherokee patents found not infringed in Lake Cherokee I). |
Lake Cherokee III Patent Litigation. On September 25, 2013, Lake Cherokee filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against MSI, MAPL and two of the Company’s customers, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,583,706, which purportedly relates to certain HDD related technologies. MSI answered the complaint on November 29, 2013. A claim construction hearing is set for August 5, 2014 and trial is currently scheduled to start on April 13, 2015. |
APT Patent Litigations. On January 18, 2011, Advanced Processor Technologies, LLC (“APT”), a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp., filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint names MSI and eight other defendants and alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,047,354 and 5,796,978. In April 2013, the parties reached an agreement to dismiss all claims and counterclaims. On June 25, 2013, MSI was dismissed from the cases. The resolution did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements. |
MOSAID Litigation. On March 16, 2011, MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against MSI and 16 other companies. The complaint alleges that defendants’ products, which operate in compliance with various IEEE 802.11standards, 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, which was denied. A claim construction hearing was held on April 16, 2013 and a claim construction ruling was issued by the magistrate judge on April 22, 2013. On June 3, 2013, the District Court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and adopted the magistrate’s claim construction ruling. On September 20, 2013, MSI and MOSAID entered a license agreement that settled the pending disputes between the parties, and on October 11, 2013, MSI was dismissed from the case. An agreed motion to dismiss MSI from the lawsuit was filed on October 8, 2013. The settlement did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements. |
|
Azure Networks Litigation. On March 22, 2011, Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for 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 November 2, 2012, MSI and the other defendants filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity, which was denied. A claim construction hearing was held on December 20, 2012. On January 15, 2013, the magistrate judge issued a claim construction ruling. On May 20, 2013, the District Court issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and adopted the magistrate judge’s claim construction ruling. On May 30, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment of non-infringement. On June 24, 2013, Azure appealed, and the appeal has been briefed. On August 20, 2013, Azure filed its opening appeal brief. On October 3, 2013, MSI and the other defendants filed a respondents’ brief. |
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 other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,504,909, which 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 was held on January 18, 2013, and a ruling was issued on May 30, 2013. On June 14, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment of non-infringement. On June 17, 2013, PMS appealed, and the appeal has been briefed. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on January 10, 2014, and affirmed the district court’s rulings on January 14, 2014. |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint also named numerous other defendants. The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,030,853, relating to high speed logic and memory circuitry, against various products. The complaint sought 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 June 10, 2013, MSI and HSM/TPL reached a settlement and on June 25, 2013, MSI was dismissed from the case. The settlement did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements. |
France Telecom Litigation. On June 26, 2012, France Telecom S.A. (“France Telecom”) filed a complaint against MSI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No.5,446,747 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 17, 2012, the Court granted MSI’s motion and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. A claim construction hearing was held on December 13, 2013. Trial is scheduled for May 12, 2014. |
Freescale Litigation. On July 6, 2012, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) filed a complaint against MSI in the U.S. 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 against certain of the Company’s integrated circuits and/or chipsets. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. Freescale filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2013 and withdrew its assertion of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,640; MSI filed its answer to the amended complaint on February 4, 2013. This case has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with nine other pending cases. A claim construction hearing was held on October 24, 2013 and was completed on December 13, 2013. No trial date has been set. |
|
On January 4, 2013, three of the Company’s subsidiaries, MSI, Marvell International Ltd. (“MIL”) and Marvell World Trade Ltd., filed a complaint against Freescale in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, and filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that Freescale infringes U.S. Patents Nos. 6,903,448 and 7,379,718. A claim construction hearing was held on December 13, 2013. No trial date has been set. |
Progressive Semiconductor Solutions Patent Litigation. On September 30, 2013, Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC (“PSS”) filed a complaint in the Central District of California against MSI and another defendant, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,349 (the “349 patent”) and 6,862,208 (the “208 patent”). The patents purportedly relate to certain memory devices. On November 19, 2013, PSS filed an amended complaint. MSI answered the first amended complaint on November 22, 2013. A claim construction hearing is scheduled to occur on or before August 11, 2014 and trial is scheduled to start on March 3, 2015. On March 3, 2014, the District Court dismissed MSI without prejudice. On March 4, 2014, PSS filed a new complaint against MSI, asserting infringement of the ‘349 patent but not the ‘208 patent. |
Vantage Point Technology Patent Litigation. On November 21, 2013, Vantage Point Technology, Inc. filed suit against a third party defendant for patent infringement relating to processor technology. On February 3, 2014, Vantage filed an amended complaint against the third party and added MSI as an additional defendant. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and no trial date has been set. |
Surety Bond |
The Company plans to appeal the final judgment issued by the District Court in the CMU litigation, regardless of the dollar amount of the final judgment. The parties are currently engaged in discussions before a Special Master concerning the bonding of the judgment pending appeal. During October 2013, the Company entered into indemnity agreements with a consortium of insurers that would potentially provide financial assurance that each of the insurers will be indemnified by the Company should a loss occur under a surety bond. As of February 1, 2014 and as of the date of this filing, no final judgment has been issued and no surety bond has been issued. Therefore, these indemnity agreements have had no impact to the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets as of February 1, 2014. The Company expects that under a surety bond, the surety companies would agree to guarantee to the District Court the Company’s payment of a specific amount, to be determined. However, the terms of any surety bond arrangements have not been finalized and the Company cannot be certain that a surety bond will be available to the Company in sufficient amount to cover the full amount of a final judgment or on commercially reasonable terms. If the Company cannot obtain a surety bond in sufficient amount or on commercially reasonable terms, or if the District Court in the CMU litigation does not approve alternative arrangements to stay execution of the judgment pending the Company’s appeal, it’s business could be harmed. For example, if, under a surety bond, the Company must post its cash, cash equivalents and short term investments as collateral, it may be restricted from using such assets in the operation of its business and such assets would be classified as restricted cash in future filings. |
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 may 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 for general commercial obligations, 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 consolidated balance sheets as the amounts cannot be reasonably estimated and are not considered probable. 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. |