Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies *Purchase Commitments* Under the Company’s manufacturing relationships with its foundry partners, cancellation of all outstanding purchase orders are allowed, but requires payment of all costs and expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. As of July 30, 2016, these foundries had incurred approximately $207.1 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, 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. 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 vigorously defend against the allegations in these matters. 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 July 30, 2016, the Company has an accrued litigation balance of $3.2 million related to certain legal proceedings described below. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss or 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 (“W.D. of Pennsylvania”). 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. Based on post-trial motions and decisions, the W.D. of Pennsylvania calculated the damages including enhancement to total approximately $1.54 billion, and held that, under its decision, CMU is entitled to post judgment interest and an ongoing royalty. On May 7, 2014, the W.D. of Pennsylvania entered final judgment, from which the Company filed a notice of appeal on May 14, 2014. On August 4, 2015, the W.D. of Pennsylvania in a three-judge panel issued an opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding in part. On February 16, 2016, the Company and CMU entered into a Settlement Agreement and Patent License pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay an aggregate of $750 million, without any ongoing royalty payments, to CMU and the parties have agreed to mutually acceptable release, license and covenant not to sue provisions. Please see “Note 13 – Carnegie Mellon University Settlement” for additional information on the effect of the settlement. The Company expects the action to be finally dismissed in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, approximately 6 months after payment of the full amount of the settlement payment. In connection with the settlement, the primary supersedeas bond that the Company entered into in connection with this litigation was reduced to $439 million and the secondary bond, which is secured, was adjusted to $311 million. All of the Company’s obligations under both bonds were discharged pursuant to an order releasing supersedeas bonds on April 21, 2016. Any bond specific indemnity agreement will be terminated and released upon final dismissal of the 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 (“E.D. of Texas”), in which USEI accused a number of system manufacturers, including the Company’s customers, of patent infringement (the “USEI litigation”). Specifically, USEI 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, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“MSI”) filed a motion to intervene in the USEI litigation, which was granted on May 19, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the E.D. of Texas issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“N.D. 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 August 16, 2013, the N.D. of California granted defendants’ summary judgment motion to preclude the plaintiff from recovering certain pre-suit damages. On November 7, 2014, on summary judgment, the N.D. of California found that all the patents-in-suit were either invalid or not infringed. On December 1, 2014, the N.D. of California entered a judgment in favor of defendants and awarded defendants’ costs. On December 29, 2014, USEI filed a motion to alter or amend the N.D. of California’s summary judgment order, which the N.D. of California denied on March 31, 2015. On April 24, 2015, USEI filed its notice of appeal. On April 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the N.D. of California’s judgment in favor of MSI. On June 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied USEI’s petition for rehearing. Innovatio Litigation. On March 16, 2015, Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC filed suit against MSI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,697,415; 5,844,893; 5,740,366; 7,916,747; 6,665,536; 7,013,138; 7,107,052; 5,546,397; 7,710,907; 7,710,935; 6,714,559; 7,457,646; and 6,374,311, purportedly related to certain wireless technology. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. 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. Saratoga Litigation. On October 16, 2015, Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio (“Saratoga”) filed an action asserting shareholder derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint names eight current or former officers and/or directors (Sehat Sutardja, Weili Dai, Juergen Gromer, Arturo Krueger, John Kassakian, Randhir Thakur, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh) as defendants and asserts various California state law causes of action based on allegations that the Company and the named officers and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in the Company’s press releases and public filings, leading to the filing of securities class actions that allegedly damaged the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint requests damages and restitution in unspecified amounts, equitable and/or injunctive relief, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On October 23, 2015, the Company removed the action to the N.D. of California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California denied Saratoga’s motion to remand. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted the Company’s motion to deem the action related to the consolidated Luna actions, discussed above. On January 22, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on March 25, 2016, the N.D. of California held a hearing on the motion and took the matter under submission. On August 16, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion and gave plaintiff 30 days leave to amend the complaint, (until September 15, 2016). Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal with prejudice. To the Company’s knowledge, none of the individual defendants has yet been served. *Surety Bonds* On May 14, 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the final judgment issued by the W.D. of Pennsylvania in the CMU litigation. In order to stay the execution of the final judgment pending its appeal, the Company filed a supersedeas bond for $1.54 billion with the W.D. of Pennsylvania in the event the Company did not fully satisfy a final judgment as affirmed after the completion of all appellate proceedings. The bond was issued by a consortium of sureties authorized by the U.S. Treasury. In support of the bond, the Company entered into separate indemnity agreements with each of the sureties to indemnify the sureties from all costs and payments made under the bond. The indemnity agreements did not require collateral to be posted at the time of the issuance of the bond. However, the indemnity agreements provide that each of the sureties have the right to demand to be placed in funds or call for collateral under pre-defined events. On November 14, 2014, the Company filed a second surety bond for $216 million and filed a commitment letter from the sureties to issue up to an additional $95 million in bonding under certain conditions. The second bond and commitment are secured by the Company’s campus located in Santa Clara, California, which has a carrying value of $129.9 million at July 30, 2016. In connection with the settlement that was reached with CMU for a total $750 million in February 2016, the primary supersedeas bond that the Company entered into was reduced to $439 million and the secondary bond was adjusted to $311 million and both were discharged pursuant to an order releasing supersedeas bonds on April 21, 2016. The underlying indemnity agreements will terminate upon the final dismissal of the case which the Company expects will occur in the third quarter of fiscal 2017. For additional information, see CMU litigation under “Contingencies” above. *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.

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

Under the Company’s manufacturing relationships with its foundry partners, cancellation of all outstanding purchase orders are allowed, but requires payment of all costs and expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. As of July 30, 2016, these foundries had incurred approximately $207.1 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, 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. 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 vigorously defend against the allegations in these matters. 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 July 30, 2016, the Company has an accrued litigation balance of $3.2 million related to certain legal proceedings described below. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss or 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 (“W.D. of Pennsylvania”). 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. Based on post-trial motions and decisions, the W.D. of Pennsylvania calculated the damages including enhancement to total approximately $1.54 billion, and held that, under its decision, CMU is entitled to post judgment interest and an ongoing royalty. On May 7, 2014, the W.D. of Pennsylvania entered final judgment, from which the Company filed a notice of appeal on May 14, 2014. On August 4, 2015, the W.D. of Pennsylvania in a three-judge panel issued an opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding in part. On February 16, 2016, the Company and CMU entered into a Settlement Agreement and Patent License pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay an aggregate of $750 million, without any ongoing royalty payments, to CMU and the parties have agreed to mutually acceptable release, license and covenant not to sue provisions. Please see “Note 13 – Carnegie Mellon University Settlement” for additional information on the effect of the settlement. The Company expects the action to be finally dismissed in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, approximately 6 months after payment of the full amount of the settlement payment. In connection with the settlement, the primary supersedeas bond that the Company entered into in connection with this litigation was reduced to $439 million and the secondary bond, which is secured, was adjusted to $311 million. All of the Company’s obligations under both bonds were discharged pursuant to an order releasing supersedeas bonds on April 21, 2016. Any bond specific indemnity agreement will be terminated and released upon final dismissal of the 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 (“E.D. of Texas”), in which USEI accused a number of system manufacturers, including the Company’s customers, of patent infringement (the “USEI litigation”). Specifically, USEI 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, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (“MSI”) filed a motion to intervene in the USEI litigation, which was granted on May 19, 2010. On July 13, 2010, the E.D. of Texas issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (“N.D. 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 August 16, 2013, the N.D. of California granted defendants’ summary judgment motion to preclude the plaintiff from recovering certain pre-suit damages. On November 7, 2014, on summary judgment, the N.D. of California found that all the patents-in-suit were either invalid or not infringed. On December 1, 2014, the N.D. of California entered a judgment in favor of defendants and awarded defendants’ costs. On December 29, 2014, USEI filed a motion to alter or amend the N.D. of California’s summary judgment order, which the N.D. of California denied on March 31, 2015. On April 24, 2015, USEI filed its notice of appeal. On April 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the N.D. of California’s judgment in favor of MSI. On June 29, 2016, the Federal Circuit denied USEI’s petition for rehearing.

Innovatio Litigation. On March 16, 2015, Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC filed suit against MSI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,697,415; 5,844,893; 5,740,366; 7,916,747; 6,665,536; 7,013,138; 7,107,052; 5,546,397; 7,710,907; 7,710,935; 6,714,559; 7,457,646; and 6,374,311, purportedly related to certain wireless technology. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

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.

Saratoga Litigation. On October 16, 2015, Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio (“Saratoga”) filed an action asserting shareholder derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint names eight current or former officers and/or directors (Sehat Sutardja, Weili Dai, Juergen Gromer, Arturo Krueger, John Kassakian, Randhir Thakur, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh) as defendants and asserts various California state law causes of action based on allegations that the Company and the named officers and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in the Company’s press releases and public filings, leading to the filing of securities class actions that allegedly damaged the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint requests damages and restitution in unspecified amounts, equitable and/or injunctive relief, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.

On October 23, 2015, the Company removed the action to the N.D. of California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California denied Saratoga’s motion to remand. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted the Company’s motion to deem the action related to the consolidated Luna actions, discussed above. On January 22, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on March 25, 2016, the N.D. of California held a hearing on the motion and took the matter under submission. On August 16, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion and gave plaintiff 30 days leave to amend the complaint, (until September 15, 2016). Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal with prejudice. To the Company’s knowledge, none of the individual defendants has yet been served.

Surety Bonds

On May 14, 2014, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the final judgment issued by the W.D. of Pennsylvania in the CMU litigation. In order to stay the execution of the final judgment pending its appeal, the Company filed a supersedeas bond for $1.54 billion with the W.D. of Pennsylvania in the event the Company did not fully satisfy a final judgment as affirmed after the completion of all appellate proceedings. The bond was issued by a consortium of sureties authorized by the U.S. Treasury. In support of the bond, the Company entered into separate indemnity agreements with each of the sureties to indemnify the sureties from all costs and payments made under the bond. The indemnity agreements did not require collateral to be posted at the time of the issuance of the bond. However, the indemnity agreements provide that each of the sureties have the right to demand to be placed in funds or call for collateral under pre-defined events.

On November 14, 2014, the Company filed a second surety bond for $216 million and filed a commitment letter from the sureties to issue up to an additional $95 million in bonding under certain conditions. The second bond and commitment are secured by the Company’s campus located in Santa Clara, California, which has a carrying value of $129.9 million at July 30, 2016.

In connection with the settlement that was reached with CMU for a total $750 million in February 2016, the primary supersedeas bond that the Company entered into was reduced to $439 million and the secondary bond was adjusted to $311 million and both were discharged pursuant to an order releasing supersedeas bonds on April 21, 2016. The underlying indemnity agreements will terminate upon the final dismissal of the case which the Company expects will occur in the third quarter of fiscal 2017. For additional information, see CMU litigation under “Contingencies” above.

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.