Marvell Technology Group (MRVL)

On June 21, 2005, the Company filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees. The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine. On May 15, 2007, the Company filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine. Among other causes of action, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell the Company technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights, and that such technology does not constitute trade secrets or property of Jasmine. The cross complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the Company’s technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology. The cross complaint seeks further a declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s allegedly proprietary technology. The Company intends to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint. On June 13, 2007, Jasmine filed a demurrer to the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action of the Company’s second amended cross complaint. The demurrer was heard on July 19, 2007 and denied. On August 3, 2007, Jasmine filed its answer to the second amended cross complaint. The Company thereafter filed its motion for summary adjudication on its fifth and sixth causes of action for declaratory relief seeking, among other things, a determination that Jasmine held no proprietary interest in the “JSLIP” algorithm, which was one of the core technologies Jasmine asserts was misappropriated by the Company. The motion was denied on November 14, 2007. However, in its opposition, Jasmine admitted that JSLIP had been taken from the work of a third party and is embodied in patents held by the University of California and Cisco Systems. These admissions are significant with respect to both Jasmine’s assertion of trade secret rights and any damages claimed by Jasmine.

In addition, on December 28, 2001 and January 7, 2002, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction precluding Jasmine from using, disclosing or disseminating the contents of a privileged communication between certain officers of the Company and its counsel. The order granting injunctive relief was reversed by the California Court of Appeal, but review was granted by the California Supreme Court on a “grant and hold” basis pending the Court’s decision on a case involving closely related issues, Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 51. The effect of the California Supreme Court’s grant of review was to depublish the Court of Appeal’s decision. On December 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled in the Rico v. Mitsubishi case in a manner consistent with the position asserted by the Company that attorney work product and attorney-client privileges are not waived by inadvertent disclosure of a privileged communication, and that any party receiving such information (i) is required to notify opposing counsel immediately; and (ii) may not read such document more closely than is necessary to determine it is privileged. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4^th 807. Following its decision in Rico v. Mitsubishi, on April 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the Company’s petition for review.  As a result the decision of the Court of Appeal, which remains unpublished, became final.

The case is now proceeding in the trial court, and a trial date has been set for March 2, 2009.  The parties are engaged in extensive discovery.  The Company and its officers intend to seek summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of issues as to the claims alleged against them, and to vigorously assert their cross-claims and defenses in the trial court.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees. The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine. On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine. Among other causes of action, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell our technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights, and that such technology does not constitute trade secrets or property of Jasmine. The cross complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology. The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s allegedly proprietary technology. We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint. On June 13, 2007, Jasmine filed a demurrer to the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action of our second amended cross complaint. The demurrer was heard on July 19, 2007 and denied. On August 3, 2007, Jasmine filed its answer to the second amended cross complaint. We thereafter filed our motion for summary adjudication on our fifth and sixth causes of action for declaratory relief seeking, among other things, a determination that Jasmine held no proprietary interest in the “JSLIP” algorithm, which was one of the core technologies Jasmine asserts was misappropriated by us. The motion was denied on November 14, 2007. However, in its opposition, Jasmine admitted that JSLIP had been taken from the work of a third party and is embodied in patents held by the University of California and Cisco Systems. These admissions are significant with respect to both Jasmine’s assertion of trade secret rights and any damages claimed by Jasmine.

In addition, on December 28, 2001 and January 7, 2002, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction precluding Jasmine from using, disclosing or disseminating the contents of a privileged communication between certain officers of us and our counsel. The order granting injunctive relief was reversed by the California Court of Appeal, but review was granted by the California Supreme Court on a “grant and hold” basis pending the Court’s decision on a case involving closely related issues, Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 51. The effect of the California Supreme Court’s grant of review was to depublish the Court of Appeal’s decision. On December 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled in the Rico v. Mitsubishi case in a manner consistent with the position asserted by us that attorney work product and attorney-client privileges are not waived by inadvertent disclosure of a privileged communication, and that any party receiving such information (i) is required to notify opposing counsel immediately; and (ii) may not read such document more closely than is necessary to determine it is privileged. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4^th 807. Following its decision in Rico v. Mitsubishi, on April 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing our petition for review.  As a result the decision of the Court of Appeal, which remains unpublished, became final.

The case is now proceeding in the trial court, where the parties are engaged in extensive discovery. We have successfully filed multiple discovery motions and anticipate filing additional discovery motions based upon Jasmine’s failure to provide discovery.  We further intend to bring dispositive motions on a number of Jasmine’s claims and anticipate a trial date sometime in 2009.  We intend to vigorously assert our cross-claims and defenses in the trial court.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees. The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine. On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine. Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights. The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology. The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology. We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint. On June 13, 2007, Jasmine filed a demurrer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action of our second amended cross-complaint. The demurrer was heard on July 19, 2007 and denied. On August 3, 2007, Jasmine filed its answer to the second amended cross complaint. We thereafter filed our motion for summary adjudication on our fifth and sixth causes of action for declaratory relief seeking, among other things, a determination that Jasmine held no propriety interest in the “JSLIP” algorithm, which was one of the core technologies Jasmine asserts was misappropriated by Marvell. The motion was denied on November 14, 2007. However, in its opposition, Jasmine admitted that JSLIP had been taken from the work of a third party and is embodied in patents held by the University of California and Cisco Systems. These admissions are significant with respect to both Jasmine’s assertion of trade secret rights and any damages claimed by Jasmine.

In addition, on December 28, 2001 and January 7, 2002, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction precluding Jasmine from using, disclosing or disseminating the contents of a privileged communication between certain officers of Marvell and its counsel. The order granting injunctive relief was reversed by the California Court of Appeal, but review was granted by the California Supreme Court on a “grant and hold” basis pending the Court’s decision on a case involving closely related issues, Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 51. The effect of the California Supreme Court’s grant of review was to depublish the Court of Appeal’s decision. On December 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled in the Rico v. Mitsubishi case in a manner consistent with the position asserted by us that attorney work product and attorney-client privileges are not waived by inadvertent disclosure of a privileged communication, and that any party receiving such information (i) is required to notify opposing counsel immediately; and (ii) may not read such document more closely than is necessary to determine it is privileged. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4^th 807. Following its decision in Rico v. Mitsubishi, on April 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing our petition for review.  As a result the decision of the Court of Appeal, which remains unpublished, became final.  The case will now proceed in the trial court, where we intend to vigorously assert our cross-claims and defenses.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees.  The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine.  On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine.  Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights.  The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint. On June 13, 2007, Jasmine filed a demurrer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action of our second amended cross-complaint. The demurrer was heard on July 19, 2007 and denied. On August 3, 2007, Jasmine filed its answer to the second amended complaint. Our motion for summary adjudication on its fifth and sixth causes of action for declaratory relief is set for November 9, 2007, which will seek, among other things, a determination that Jasmine held no propriety interest in the “JSLIP” algorithm, which was one of the core technologies Jasmine asserts was misappropriated by Marvell.  The motion was denied on November 14, 2007.

44

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees.  The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine.  On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine.  Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully

42

obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights.  The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint. On June 13, 2007, Jasmine filed a demurrer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action of our second amended cross-complaint. The demurrer was heard on July 19, 2007 and denied. On August 3, 2007, Jasmine filed its answer to the second amended complaint. We have reserved October 30, 2007 as a hearing date for a motion for summary adjudication on its fifth and sixth causes of action for declaratory relief, which will seek, among other things, a determination that Jasmine held no propriety interest in the “JSLIP” algorithm, which was one of the core technologies Jasmine asserts was misappropriated by Marvell.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees.  The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine.  On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine.  Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights.  The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees.  The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine.  On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine.  Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights.  The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees.  The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine.  On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine.  Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights.  The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint.

On June 21, 2005, we filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees.  The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine.  On May 15, 2007, we filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine.  Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights.  The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that our technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology.  We intend to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint.

On June 21, 2005, the Company filed a cross complaint in the above disclosed action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims against Jasmine and unnamed Jasmine officers and employees. The cross complaint was later amended to name two individual officers of Jasmine. On May 15, 2007, the Company filed a second amended cross complaint to add additional causes of action for declaratory relief against Jasmine. Among other actions, the cross complaint alleges that Jasmine and its personnel engaged in fraud in connection with their effort to sell to us technology that Jasmine and its personnel wrongfully obtained from a third party in violation of such third party’s rights. The cross complaint seeks declaratory judgment that the Company’s technology does not incorporate any of Jasmine’s alleged technology. The cross complaint seeks further declaratory judgment that Jasmine and its personnel misappropriated certain aspects of Jasmine’s alleged technology. The Company intends to prosecute the cross complaint against Jasmine and its personnel vigorously, including, but not limited to, filing certain dispositive motions regarding the ownership of the technology which is the subject of the cross complaint.

144

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued)