Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 25, 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 our subsidiary. 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. However, 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. Patent Infringement Cases On September 4, 2014, NVIDIA filed complaints against Qualcomm, Inc., or Qualcomm, and various Samsung entities in both the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of seven patents relating to graphics processing. In the ITC action, NVIDIA seeks to exclude importation 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, or the Accused Products. On October 6, 2014, the ITC instituted 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 and these motions were granted. The ITC held an evidentiary hearing on certain asserted claims of the three remaining patents from June 22 through June 26, 2015. On October 9, 2015, the ITC Administrative Law Judge rendered an initial determination that importation of the Samsung Accused Products did not violate U.S. law. NVIDIA is currently seeking review of the decision by the full commission of the ITC. The commission will decide whether to review parts of the initial determination on or before December 14, 2015 and the target date for the final decision is February 10, 2016. In the Delaware action, NVIDIA seeks unspecified damages for Samsung and Qualcomm’s alleged patent infringement. On October 22, 2014, Samsung and Qualcomm exercised their statutory right to stay the Delaware proceedings in light of the pending ITC action and 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. Samsung amended its complaint twice, first on December 19, 2014, and then on April 10, 2015, without changing its legal claims. Samsung seeks monetary damages and certain injunctive relief as to some of the asserted patents. 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 two of the asserted patents and those patents were dismissed from the case with prejudice. Samsung’s false advertising claim was dismissed with prejudice on July 30, 2015. On October 15, 2015, NVIDIA’s Motion for Entry of Judgment of Noninfringement was granted as to one of Samsung’s patents. Five patents currently asserted against NVIDIA remain and a jury trial is currently scheduled to begin January 19, 2016. On November 23, 2014, Samsung filed a complaint against NVIDIA, among others, in the ITC claiming infringement of four United States patents and seeking an exclusion order barring importation of NVIDIA products alleged to infringe Samsung’s patents. On December 23, 2014, the ITC instituted 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 was held from August 18 through August 21, 2015. Post-hearing briefing is complete and the Administrative Law Judge is scheduled to issue his initial determination by December 22, 2015. The target date for the final determination by the ITC is April 22, 2016. 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 eleven 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, and Qualcomm has filed three additional requests for inter partes review on two patents asserted by NVIDIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has, to date, decided to review three patents owned by NVIDIA, and three patents owned by Samsung. All other requests are currently pending. 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 October 25, 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 our subsidiary.

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. However, 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.

Patent Infringement Cases

On September 4, 2014, NVIDIA filed complaints against Qualcomm, Inc., or Qualcomm, and various Samsung entities in both the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC, and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of seven patents relating to graphics processing. In the ITC action, NVIDIA seeks to exclude importation 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, or the Accused Products. On October 6, 2014, the ITC instituted 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 and these motions were granted. The ITC held an evidentiary hearing on certain asserted claims of the three remaining patents from June 22 through June 26, 2015. On October 9, 2015, the ITC Administrative Law Judge rendered an initial determination that importation of the Samsung Accused Products did not violate U.S. law. NVIDIA is currently seeking review of the decision by the full commission of the ITC. The commission will decide whether to review parts of the initial determination on or before December 14, 2015 and the target date for the final decision is February 10, 2016.

In the Delaware action, NVIDIA seeks unspecified damages for Samsung and Qualcomm’s alleged patent infringement. On October 22, 2014, Samsung and Qualcomm exercised their statutory right to stay the Delaware proceedings in light of the pending ITC action and 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. Samsung amended its complaint twice, first on December 19, 2014, and then on April 10, 2015, without changing its legal claims. Samsung seeks monetary damages and certain injunctive relief as to some of the asserted patents. 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 two of the asserted patents and those patents were dismissed from the case with prejudice. Samsung’s false advertising claim was dismissed with prejudice on July 30, 2015. On October 15, 2015, NVIDIA’s Motion for Entry of Judgment of Noninfringement was granted as to one of Samsung’s patents. Five patents currently asserted against NVIDIA remain and a jury trial is currently scheduled to begin January 19, 2016.

On November 23, 2014, Samsung filed a complaint against NVIDIA, among others, in the ITC claiming infringement of four United States patents and seeking an exclusion order barring importation of NVIDIA products alleged to infringe Samsung’s patents. On December 23, 2014, the ITC instituted 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 was held from August 18 through August 21, 2015. Post-hearing briefing is complete and the Administrative Law Judge is scheduled to issue his initial determination by December 22, 2015. The target date for the final determination by the ITC is April 22, 2016.

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 eleven 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, and Qualcomm has filed three additional requests for inter partes review on two patents asserted by NVIDIA. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has, to date, decided to review three patents owned by NVIDIA, and three patents owned by Samsung. All other requests are currently pending.

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 October 25, 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.