Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 26, 2015
Notes to financial statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Financing Arrangement In the second quarter of fiscal year 2016, we began to construct a new headquarters building in Santa Clara, California, which is currently targeted for completion in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018. We are financing this construction under an off-balance sheet, build-to-suit operating lease arrangement. As a part of this arrangement, we leased the real property we own where the building will be constructed under a 99 year ground lease to a syndicate of banks and concurrently leased back the building under a real property lease. Under the real property lease, we pay rent, taxes, maintenance costs, utilities, insurance and other property related costs. The lease has an initial 7.5 year term expiring on December 19, 2022, consisting of an approximately 2.5 year construction period followed by a 5 year lease term. We have the option to renew this lease for up to three additional 5 year periods, subject to approval by the banks. We will oversee the construction of the headquarters building. The banks have committed to fund up to $380 million of costs relating to construction. Advances will be made periodically to reimburse us for construction costs we incur. Once construction is complete, the lease balance will remain static at the completed cost for the remaining duration of the lease term. During construction, accrued interest will be capitalized into the lease balance. Following construction, we will pay rent in the form of interest. We have guaranteed the obligations under the lease held by any of our subsidiaries. During the term of the lease, we may elect to purchase the headquarters building for the amount of the banks’ investment in the building and any accrued but unpaid rent. At the end of the lease term, we may elect to buy the building for the outstanding balance on the maturity date or arrange for the cash sale of the building to an unaffiliated third party. The aggregate guarantee made by us under the lease is no more than 87.5% of the costs incurred in connection with the construction of the building. Under certain default circumstances, the lease guarantee may be 100% of the banks’ investment in the building plus any and all accrued but unpaid interest and all other rent due and payable under the operative agreements. The operative agreements are subject to customary default provisions, including, for example, those relating to payment and performance defaults, and events of bankruptcy. We are also subject to financial covenants including a covenant to maintain a maximum total leverage ratio not to exceed 3.0 to 1.0 and a minimum interest coverage ratio in excess of 3.5 to 1.0 during the term. If certain events of default occur and are continuing under the operative agreements, the banks may accelerate repayment of their investment under the lease. Securities Cases In September 2008, three putative securities class 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 January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. We moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We again moved to dismiss and on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted our motion to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014. On October 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a rehearing or en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the dismissal. Plaintiffs’ request was denied on November 10, 2014. On February 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On April 15, 2015, we filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ petition and the petition was denied on May 26, 2015. The case is now over. Patent Infringement Cases On September 4, 2014, NVIDIA filed complaints against Qualcomm, Inc., or Qualcomm, and various Samsung entities with both the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for alleged infringement of seven patents relating to graphics processing. In the ITC action, NVIDIA seeks to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets and other consumer electronics and display devices containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures. On October 6, 2014, the ITC initiated an investigation of NVIDIA’s claim. On February 2 and 3, 2015, the court conducted a claim construction hearing on certain claim language from five of the seven patents at issue. In June 2015, NVIDIA moved to terminate all asserted claims on four patents, which motions have not yet been acted upon. Certain asserted claims of the three remaining patents pending before the ITC were tried at a hearing on June 22-26, 2015. The post-hearing briefing was concluded on July 24, 2015, and the parties expect a decision on October 9, 2015. In the Delaware action, NVIDIA seeks unspecified damages for Samsung and Qualcomm’s alleged patent infringement. On October 22, 2014, Samsung and Qualcomm moved to stay the Delaware proceedings in light of the pending ITC action and NVIDIA did not oppose the motion. The court granted the motion to stay on October 23, 2014. On November 10, 2014, Samsung filed a complaint against NVIDIA and Velocity Micro, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that NVIDIA infringed six patents and falsely advertised that the Tegra K1 processor is the world’s fastest mobile processor. On December 19, 2014, and then on April 10, 2015, Samsung filed amended, longer complaints, but which continued to assert the same claims against NVIDIA. Samsung seeks unspecified damages and an injunction prohibiting NVIDIA from any future violations. NVIDIA answered the second amended complaint on April 16, 2015, and asserted counter-claims against Samsung for infringing four of NVIDIA’s patents and for non-infringement and invalidity of the six patents asserted in Samsung’s second amended complaint. On April 24, 2015, Samsung moved to sever NVIDIA’s counter-claims for patent infringement and its motion was granted on May 19, 2015. NVIDIA voluntarily withdrew its counter-claims on May 19, 2015. On June 17, 2015, Velocity Micro, Inc. voluntarily agreed to a permanent injunction preventing it from infringing certain patents and was dismissed from the case with prejudice. A Markman hearing was held on June 29, 2015 and trial is set to begin in January 2016. Samsung’s false advertising claim was dismissed with prejudice on July 30, 2015. On November 23, 2014, Samsung filed a complaint against NVIDIA, among others, in the ITC claiming infringement of four United States patents. Samsung seeks to permanently bar several products purportedly relying on these allegedly infringed patents in the United States. On December 23, 2014, the ITC initiated an investigation of Samsung’s claims. On June 5, 2015, Samsung withdrew one patent from the case. A hearing on Samsung’s three remaining patents began on August 18, 2015. NVIDIA and Samsung have also challenged the validity of certain of each other’s patents through inter partes review before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. NVIDIA has filed ten requests for inter partes review on eight of Samsung’s asserted patents. Samsung has filed six requests for inter partes review on six patents asserted by NVIDIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has not yet decided whether to institute review as to any of the patents. 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. As of July 26, 2015, 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

Operating Lease Financing Arrangement

In the second quarter of fiscal year 2016, we began to construct a new headquarters building in Santa Clara, California, which is currently targeted for completion in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018. We are financing this construction under an off-balance sheet, build-to-suit operating lease arrangement. As a part of this arrangement, we leased the real property we own where the building will be constructed under a 99 year ground lease to a syndicate of banks and concurrently leased back the building under a real property lease.

Under the real property lease, we pay rent, taxes, maintenance costs, utilities, insurance and other property related costs. The lease has an initial 7.5 year term expiring on December 19, 2022, consisting of an approximately 2.5 year construction period followed by a 5 year lease term. We have the option to renew this lease for up to three additional 5 year periods, subject to approval by the banks.

We will oversee the construction of the headquarters building. The banks have committed to fund up to $380 million of costs relating to construction. Advances will be made periodically to reimburse us for construction costs we incur. Once construction is complete, the lease balance will remain static at the completed cost for the remaining duration of the lease term. During construction, accrued interest will be capitalized into the lease balance. Following construction, we will pay rent in the form of interest. We have guaranteed the obligations under the lease held by any of our subsidiaries.

During the term of the lease, we may elect to purchase the headquarters building for the amount of the banks’ investment in the building and any accrued but unpaid rent. At the end of the lease term, we may elect to buy the building for the outstanding balance on the maturity date or arrange for the cash sale of the building to an unaffiliated third party. The aggregate guarantee made by us under the lease is no more than 87.5% of the costs incurred in connection with the construction of the building. Under certain default circumstances, the lease guarantee may be 100% of the banks’ investment in the building plus any and all accrued but unpaid interest and all other rent due and payable under the operative agreements.

The operative agreements are subject to customary default provisions, including, for example, those relating to payment and performance defaults, and events of bankruptcy. We are also subject to financial covenants including a covenant to maintain a maximum total leverage ratio not to exceed 3.0 to 1.0 and a minimum interest coverage ratio in excess of 3.5 to 1.0 during the term. If certain events of default occur and are continuing under the operative agreements, the banks may accelerate repayment of their investment under the lease.

Securities Cases

In September 2008, three putative securities class 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 January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. We moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We again moved to dismiss and on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted our motion to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014. On October 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a rehearing or en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the dismissal. Plaintiffs’ request was denied on November 10, 2014. On February 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On April 15, 2015, we filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ petition and the petition was denied on May 26, 2015. The case is now over.

Patent Infringement Cases

On September 4, 2014, NVIDIA filed complaints against Qualcomm, Inc., or Qualcomm, and various Samsung entities with both the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for alleged infringement of seven patents relating to graphics processing. In the ITC action, NVIDIA seeks to block shipments of Samsung Galaxy mobile phones and tablets and other consumer electronics and display devices containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures. On October 6, 2014, the ITC initiated an investigation of NVIDIA’s claim. On February 2 and 3, 2015, the court conducted a claim construction hearing on certain claim language from five of the seven patents at issue. In June 2015, NVIDIA moved to terminate all asserted claims on four patents, which motions have not yet been acted upon. Certain asserted claims of the three remaining patents pending before the ITC were tried at a hearing on June 22-26, 2015. The post-hearing briefing was concluded on July 24, 2015, and the parties expect a decision on October 9, 2015.

In the Delaware action, NVIDIA seeks unspecified damages for Samsung and Qualcomm’s alleged patent infringement. On October 22, 2014, Samsung and Qualcomm moved to stay the Delaware proceedings in light of the pending ITC action and NVIDIA did not oppose the motion. The court granted the motion to stay on October 23, 2014.

On November 10, 2014, Samsung filed a complaint against NVIDIA and Velocity Micro, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that NVIDIA infringed six patents and falsely advertised that the Tegra K1 processor is the world’s fastest mobile processor. On December 19, 2014, and then on April 10, 2015, Samsung filed amended, longer complaints, but which continued to assert the same claims against NVIDIA. Samsung seeks unspecified damages and an injunction prohibiting NVIDIA from any future violations. NVIDIA answered the second amended complaint on April 16, 2015, and asserted counter-claims against Samsung for infringing four of NVIDIA’s patents and for non-infringement and invalidity of the six patents asserted in Samsung’s second amended complaint. On April 24, 2015, Samsung moved to sever NVIDIA’s counter-claims for patent infringement and its motion was granted on May 19, 2015. NVIDIA voluntarily withdrew its counter-claims on May 19, 2015. On June 17, 2015, Velocity Micro, Inc. voluntarily agreed to a permanent injunction preventing it from infringing certain patents and was dismissed from the case with prejudice. A Markman hearing was held on June 29, 2015 and trial is set to begin in January 2016. Samsung’s false advertising claim was dismissed with prejudice on July 30, 2015.

On November 23, 2014, Samsung filed a complaint against NVIDIA, among others, in the ITC claiming infringement of four United States patents. Samsung seeks to permanently bar several products purportedly relying on these allegedly infringed patents in the United States. On December 23, 2014, the ITC initiated an investigation of Samsung’s claims. On June 5, 2015, Samsung withdrew one patent from the case. A hearing on Samsung’s three remaining patents began on August 18, 2015.

NVIDIA and Samsung have also challenged the validity of certain of each other’s patents through inter partes review before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. NVIDIA has filed ten requests for inter partes review on eight of Samsung’s asserted patents. Samsung has filed six requests for inter partes review on six patents asserted by NVIDIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has not yet decided whether to institute review as to any of the patents.

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. As of July 26, 2015, 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.