Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty Obligations

The Company’s products carry a standard one-year 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 2018, 2017, and 2016 was approximately $16.8 million, $23.7 million and $23.8 million, respectively. The Company also purchases certain intellectual property under technology license obligations. Future minimum lease payments, net of estimated sublease income, and payments under technology license obligations as of February 3, 2018, are presented in the following tables (in thousands):



Fiscal Year	Minimum Operating Lease Payments
2019	$	27,200
2020	20,918
2021	8,688
2022	7,880
2023	7,729
Thereafter	5,451
Total future minimum lease payments	$	77,866



Fiscal Year	Technology License Obligations
2019	$	34,250
2020	29,605
2021	7,358
Total future minimum lease payments	$	71,213
Less: amount representing interest	(1,493		)
Present value of future minimum payments	69,720
Less: current portion	(25,998		)
Non-current portion	$	43,722

Technology license obligations include the liabilities under 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 is allowed but requires payment of all costs and expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. As of February 3, 2018, these foundries had incurred approximately $145.6 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 as well as the attorneys’ fees and costs under an infringement claim. 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 and claims, 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. The Company is also engaged in other legal proceedings and claims not described below, which arise in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of these proceedings and claims and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss or estimate a range of possible loss, except with respect to amounts where it has determined a loss is both probable and estimable and has made an accrual. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling in litigation, particularly patent 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. 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.

Luna Litigation and Consolidated Cases. On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company’s shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“S.D. of New York”). This action was consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh) made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in the Company’s press releases and public filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company’s motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted the Company’s motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the Saratoga litigation, discussed below. On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took the matter under submission. On October 12, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend and granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed and served the amended complaint on November 28, 2016. The Initial Case Management Conference took place on January 12, 2017. Marvell and co-defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss on January 17, 2017. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss took place on May 4, 2017 and, on May 17, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as to Rashkin and Nagesh and denied the Motion to Dismiss as to Sutardja and Marvell. On August 2, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On October 27, 2017, after a hearing on October 26, 2017, the Court certified a class of persons or entities that acquired Marvell stock during the period from February 19, 2015 to December 7, 2015. The Court set a deadline of December 29, 2017 for the conclusion of fact discovery.

In early December 2017, an initial proposal for a monetary settlement of the case was tendered to the Company by plaintiffs' counsel. Negotiations regarding the conditions of a proposed settlement continued until December 19, 2017 when Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and the remaining defendants entered into a written settlement agreement that is subject to the Court’s approval and provides for class-wide releases in exchange for a payment by the Company of $72.5 million, which the Company placed into escrow in connection with the Court’s preliminary approval of the class settlement. In the settlement agreement, the defendants expressly deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the conduct alleged in the litigation and state that they determined that having taken into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases such as this, it is desirable and beneficial to them that the litigation be fully and finally settled. The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on December 21, 2017, and the final settlement approval hearing has been scheduled for April 17, 2018. The settlement amount plus associated legal fees totaling $74.4 million is included in "Litigation settlement" in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations as of the fiscal year ended February 3, 2018.

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.

Carnegie Mellon University Settlement

In February 2016, the Company and CMU settled their patent infringement lawsuit pursuant to a court-ordered mediation and entered into a Settlement Agreement and Patent License (the “Agreement”). The parties agreed to mutual release of claims, license and covenant not to sue provisions for which the Company paid an aggregate of $750 million to CMU in fiscal 2017.

The Agreement was accounted for as a multiple-element arrangement and accordingly, a valuation was completed to determine the estimated fair value of each identifiable element. As a result, the Company allocated $654.7 million to the mutual release of claims and covenant not to sue provisions; $81.3 million to the licensing of intellectual property in fiscal 2016; and the remaining $14.0 million representing the future use of the license through April 2018.

The $654.7 million for the mutual release of claims and covenant not to sue was recorded in fiscal 2016 as a settlement charge in operating expenses since there is no future benefit. The $81.3 million license fee was recorded in fiscal 2016 as a charge in cost of goods sold for past use of the license. The $14.0 million representing the future use of the license, is to be recognized in cost of goods sold over the remaining term of the license from February 2016 through April 2018. Accordingly, the Company recorded $6.2 million to cost of goods sold in fiscal 2017.