Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 28, 2013
Notes to financial statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 3dfx On December 15, 2000, NVIDIA and one of our indirect subsidiaries entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, or APA, to purchase certain graphics chip assets from 3dfx. The transaction closed on April 18, 2001. That acquisition, and 3dfx's October 2002 bankruptcy filing, led to four lawsuits against NVIDIA: two brought by 3dfx's former landlords, one by 3dfx's bankruptcy trustee and the fourth by a committee of 3dfx's equity security holders in the bankruptcy estate. The two landlord cases have been settled with payments from the landlords to NVIDIA, and the equity security holders lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and no appeal was filed. Accordingly, only the bankruptcy trustee suit remains outstanding as more fully explained below. In March 2003, the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent 3dfx's bankruptcy estate served a complaint on NVIDIA asserting claims for, among other things, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and seeking additional payments from us. The Trustee's fraudulent transfer theory alleged that NVIDIA had failed to pay reasonably equivalent value for 3dfx's assets, and sought recovery of the difference between the $70.0 million paid and the alleged fair value, which the Trustee estimated to exceed $50.0 million. The Trustee's successor liability theory alleged NVIDIA was effectively 3dfx's legal successor and therefore was responsible for all of 3dfx's unpaid liabilities. On October 13, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court heard the Trustee's motion for summary adjudication, and on December 23, 2005, denied that motion in all material respects and held that NVIDIA may not dispute that the value of the 3dfx transaction was less than $108.0 million. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee's request to find that the value of the 3dfx assets conveyed to NVIDIA was at least $108.0 million. In early November 2005, after several months of mediation, NVIDIA and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, or the Creditors' Committee, agreed to a Plan of Liquidation of 3dfx, which included a conditional settlement of the Trustee's claims against us. This conditional settlement was subject to a confirmation process through a vote of creditors and the review and approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The conditional settlement called for a payment by NVIDIA of approximately $30.6 million to the 3dfx estate. Under the settlement, $5.6 million related to various administrative expenses and Trustee fees, and $25.0 million related to the satisfaction of debts and liabilities owed to the general unsecured creditors of 3dfx. Accordingly, during the three month period ended October 30, 2005, we recorded $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx. The Trustee advised that he intended to object to the settlement. The conditional settlement never progressed substantially through the confirmation process. On December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a trial for one portion of the Trustee's case against NVIDIA. On January 2, 2007, NVIDIA terminated the settlement agreement on grounds that the Bankruptcy Court had failed to proceed toward confirmation of the Creditors' Committee's plan. A non-jury trial began on March 21, 2007 on valuation issues in the Trustee's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against NVIDIA. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court tried four questions: (1) what did 3dfx transfer to NVIDIA in the APA; (2) of what was transferred, what qualifies as “property” subject to the Bankruptcy Court's avoidance powers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and relevant bankruptcy code provisions; (3) what is the fair market value of the “property” identified in answer to question (2); and (4) was the $70.0 million that NVIDIA paid “reasonably equivalent” to the fair market value of that property. The parties completed post-trial briefing on May 25, 2007. On April 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Memorandum Decision After Trial, in which it provided a detailed summary of the trial proceedings and the parties' contentions and evidence and concluded that “the creditors of 3dfx were not injured by the Transaction.” This decision did not entirely dispose of the Trustee's action, however, as the Trustee's claims for successor liability and intentional fraudulent conveyance were still pending. On June 19, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion for summary judgment to convert the Memorandum Decision After Trial to a final judgment. That motion was granted in its entirety and judgment was entered in NVIDIA's favor on September 11, 2008. The Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal from that judgment on September 22, 2008, and on September 25, 2008, NVIDIA exercised its election to have the appeal heard by the United States District Court. The District Court's hearing on the Trustee's appeal was held on June 10, 2009. On December 20, 2010, the District Court issued an Order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's entry of summary judgment in NVIDIA's favor. On January 19, 2011, the Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A hearing on the appeal is currently scheduled for October 17, 2013. While the conditional settlement reached in November 2005 never progressed through the confirmation process, the Trustee's case still remains pending on appeal. Accordingly, we have not reversed the accrual of $30.6 million - $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx - that we recorded during the three months ended October 30, 2005, pending resolution of the appeal of the Trustee's case. Product Defect Litigation and Securities Cases Product Defect Litigation In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed against us, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation products used in notebook configurations. On February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under the caption “The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.” On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. After extensive motion practice and litigation, plaintiffs on December 14, 2009 filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint seeking unspecified damages and asserting claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. The settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals, including final approval by the court. As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges we recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the implementation of these settlements. On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the potential class members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections. In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is currently pending. On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3, 2011 the action was transferred to the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the parties. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012. On July 12, 2012, the District Court dismissed six of the seven asserted causes of action with prejudice, allowing only one cause of action for violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute to continue, and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consistent with its Order. On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff indicated that he would not be filing an amended complaint. The Granfield case is now over. Securities Cases In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of our announcements on July 2, 2008, that we would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP and GPU products and that we were revising financial guidance for our second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel. On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed, but the Ninth Circuit has not yet set a hearing date. Accounting for Loss Contingencies While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe the claims made by other parties in the above ongoing matters are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the actions. With the exception of the 3dfx and product defect litigation cases, we have not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on our belief that liabilities, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We are engaged in other legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity or financial position.

Commitments and Contingencies

3dfx

On December 15, 2000, NVIDIA and one of our indirect subsidiaries entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, or APA, to purchase certain graphics chip assets from 3dfx. The transaction closed on April 18, 2001. That acquisition, and 3dfx's October 2002 bankruptcy filing, led to four lawsuits against NVIDIA: two brought by 3dfx's former landlords, one by 3dfx's bankruptcy trustee and the fourth by a committee of 3dfx's equity security holders in the bankruptcy estate. The two landlord cases have been settled with payments from the landlords to NVIDIA, and the equity security holders lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and no appeal was filed. Accordingly, only the bankruptcy trustee suit remains outstanding as more fully explained below.

In March 2003, the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent 3dfx's bankruptcy estate served a complaint on NVIDIA asserting claims for, among other things, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and seeking additional payments from us. The Trustee's fraudulent transfer theory alleged that NVIDIA had failed to pay reasonably equivalent value for 3dfx's assets, and sought recovery of the difference between the $70.0 million paid and the alleged fair value, which the Trustee estimated to exceed $50.0 million. The Trustee's successor liability theory alleged NVIDIA was effectively 3dfx's legal successor and therefore was responsible for all of 3dfx's unpaid liabilities.

On October 13, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court heard the Trustee's motion for summary adjudication, and on December 23, 2005, denied that motion in all material respects and held that NVIDIA may not dispute that the value of the 3dfx transaction was less than $108.0 million. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee's request to find that the value of the 3dfx assets conveyed to NVIDIA was at least $108.0 million.

In early November 2005, after several months of mediation, NVIDIA and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, or the Creditors' Committee, agreed to a Plan of Liquidation of 3dfx, which included a conditional settlement of the Trustee's claims against us. This conditional settlement was subject to a confirmation process through a vote of creditors and the review and approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The conditional settlement called for a payment by NVIDIA of approximately $30.6 million to the 3dfx estate. Under the settlement, $5.6 million related to various administrative expenses and Trustee fees, and $25.0 million related to the satisfaction of debts and liabilities owed to the general unsecured creditors of 3dfx. Accordingly, during the three month period ended October 30, 2005, we recorded $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx. The Trustee advised that he intended to object to the settlement. The conditional settlement never progressed substantially through the confirmation process.

On December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a trial for one portion of the Trustee's case against NVIDIA. On January 2, 2007, NVIDIA terminated the settlement agreement on grounds that the Bankruptcy Court had failed to proceed toward confirmation of the Creditors' Committee's plan. A non-jury trial began on March 21, 2007 on valuation issues in the Trustee's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against NVIDIA. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court tried four questions: (1) what did 3dfx transfer to NVIDIA in the APA; (2) of what was transferred, what qualifies as “property” subject to the Bankruptcy Court's avoidance powers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and relevant bankruptcy code provisions; (3) what is the fair market value of the “property” identified in answer to question (2); and (4) was the $70.0 million that NVIDIA paid “reasonably equivalent” to the fair market value of that property. The parties completed post-trial briefing on May 25, 2007.

On April 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Memorandum Decision After Trial, in which it provided a detailed summary of the trial proceedings and the parties' contentions and evidence and concluded that “the creditors of 3dfx were not injured by the Transaction.” This decision did not entirely dispose of the Trustee's action, however, as the Trustee's claims for successor liability and intentional fraudulent conveyance were still pending. On June 19, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion for summary judgment to convert the Memorandum Decision After Trial to a final judgment. That motion was granted in its entirety and judgment was entered in NVIDIA's favor on September 11, 2008. The Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal from that judgment on September 22, 2008, and on September 25, 2008, NVIDIA exercised its election to have the appeal heard by the United States District Court.

The District Court's hearing on the Trustee's appeal was held on June 10, 2009. On December 20, 2010, the District Court issued an Order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's entry of summary judgment in NVIDIA's favor. On January 19, 2011, the Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A hearing on the appeal is currently scheduled for October 17, 2013.

While the conditional settlement reached in November 2005 never progressed through the confirmation process, the Trustee's case still remains pending on appeal. Accordingly, we have not reversed the accrual of $30.6 million - $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx - that we recorded during the three months ended October 30, 2005, pending resolution of the appeal of the Trustee's case.

Product Defect Litigation and Securities Cases

Product Defect Litigation

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed against us, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation products used in notebook configurations. On February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under the caption “The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.” On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

After extensive motion practice and litigation, plaintiffs on December 14, 2009 filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint seeking unspecified damages and asserting claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. The settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals, including final approval by the court. As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges we recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the implementation of these settlements. On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the potential class members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections. In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is currently pending.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3, 2011 the action was transferred to the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the parties. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012.

On July 12, 2012, the District Court dismissed six of the seven asserted causes of action with prejudice, allowing only one cause of action for violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute to continue, and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consistent with its Order. On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff indicated that he would not be filing an amended complaint. The Granfield case is now over.

Securities Cases

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of our announcements on July 2, 2008, that we would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP and GPU products and that we were revising financial guidance for our second quarter of fiscal year 2009. The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed, but the Ninth Circuit has not yet set a hearing date.

Accounting for Loss Contingencies

While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe the claims made by other parties in the above ongoing matters are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the actions. With the exception of the 3dfx and product defect litigation cases, we have not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on our belief that liabilities, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We are engaged in other legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity or financial position.