Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 29, 2017
Notes to financial statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Financing Arrangement In November 2017, subsequent to the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2018, we exercised the option to terminate the off-balance sheet, build-to-suit operating lease financing arrangement related to our new Santa Clara campus building. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018, we expect to refinance and purchase the property for approximately $350 million. Litigation Polaris Innovations Limited On May 16, 2016, Polaris Innovations Limited, or Polaris, a non-practicing entity and wholly-owned subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc. (formerly WiLAN Inc.), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that NVIDIA has infringed and is continuing to infringe six U.S. patents relating to the control of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, and costs against NVIDIA. On September 14, 2016, NVIDIA answered the Polaris Complaint and asserted various defenses including non-infringement and invalidity of the six Polaris patents. On December 5, 2016, the Texas Court granted NVIDIA’s motion to transfer and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. The California Court has not set a trial date. On December 7, 2016, NVIDIA filed a petition for inter partes review with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,886,122, which is asserted by Polaris in that California district court litigation. On December 19, 2016, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325, another patent asserted by Polaris. On May 5, 2017, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,161,344, another patent asserted by Polaris. On May 30, 2017, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,532,505, another patent asserted by Polaris. On June 22, 2017, the USPTO instituted inter partes review of U.S Patent No. 7,886,122. On June 23, 2017, the USPTO denied institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325. On July 25, 2017, NVIDIA filed inter partes requests with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,207,976, another patent asserted by Polaris. Also on July 25, 2017, NVIDIA filed inter partes requests with the USPTO for U.S. Patent No. 8,161,344 challenging the validity of further claims and an additional inter partes request for U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325. All of the patents that Polaris has asserted in the U.S. litigation are now subject to requests for inter partes review, with institution decisions forthcoming. On May 9, 2017, NVIDIA filed a Motion to Stay the California action pending final resolution of the inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,886,122; 7,124,325; and 8,161,344. On June 15, 2017, the Motion to Stay was granted. The action has now been stayed until December 14, 2017 pending the institution of the inter partes review of these patents. On December 30, 2016, NVIDIA received notice that Polaris had filed a complaint for patent infringement in Germany. The German case alleges infringement of European Patent No. EP1428225 and German Patent Nos. DE 10223167 and DE 1020066043668. On July 14, 2017, NVIDIA filed defenses to the infringement allegations including non-infringement with respect to each of the three asserted patents. An oral hearing has been scheduled for February 21, 2019. On March 31, 2017, the German Patent Court acknowledged receipt of nullity actions filed by NVIDIA challenging the validity of EP1428225 and DE 1020066043668. On June 12, 2017, NVIDIA was notified that the nullity actions against EP1428225 and DE 1020066043668 were served on Polaris and that Polaris has filed a formal response opposing each nullity complaint. On July 14, 2017, the German Patent Court acknowledged receipt of a nullity action filed by NVIDIA challenging the validity of DE 10223167. On September 13, 2017, NVIDIA was notified that the nullity action against DE10223167 was served on Polaris. Polaris has not yet responded to this action. Accounting for Loss Contingencies While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe the claims made by the other party in the above ongoing matters are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the actions. As of October 29, 2017, 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 November 2017, subsequent to the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2018, we exercised the option to terminate the off-balance sheet, build-to-suit operating lease financing arrangement related to our new Santa Clara campus building. In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018, we expect to refinance and purchase the property for approximately $350 million.

Litigation

Polaris Innovations Limited

On May 16, 2016, Polaris Innovations Limited, or Polaris, a non-practicing entity and wholly-owned subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc. (formerly WiLAN Inc.), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that NVIDIA has infringed and is continuing to infringe six U.S. patents relating to the control of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, fees, expenses, and costs against NVIDIA. On September 14, 2016, NVIDIA answered the Polaris Complaint and asserted various defenses including non-infringement and invalidity of the six Polaris patents.

On December 5, 2016, the Texas Court granted NVIDIA’s motion to transfer and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. The California Court has not set a trial date.

On December 7, 2016, NVIDIA filed a petition for inter partes review with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,886,122, which is asserted by Polaris in that California district court litigation. On December 19, 2016, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325, another patent asserted by Polaris. On May 5, 2017, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,161,344, another patent asserted by Polaris. On May 30, 2017, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,532,505, another patent asserted by Polaris. On June 22, 2017, the USPTO instituted inter partes review of U.S Patent No. 7,886,122. On June 23, 2017, the USPTO denied institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325. On July 25, 2017, NVIDIA filed inter partes requests with the USPTO challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,207,976, another patent asserted by Polaris. Also on July 25, 2017, NVIDIA filed inter partes requests with the USPTO for U.S. Patent No. 8,161,344 challenging the validity of further claims and an additional inter partes request for U.S. Patent No. 7,124,325. All of the patents that Polaris has asserted in the U.S. litigation are now subject to requests for inter partes review, with institution decisions forthcoming.

On May 9, 2017, NVIDIA filed a Motion to Stay the California action pending final resolution of the inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,886,122; 7,124,325; and 8,161,344. On June 15, 2017, the Motion to Stay was granted. The action has now been stayed until December 14, 2017 pending the institution of the inter partes review of these patents.

On December 30, 2016, NVIDIA received notice that Polaris had filed a complaint for patent infringement in Germany. The German case alleges infringement of European Patent No. EP1428225 and German Patent Nos. DE 10223167 and DE 1020066043668. On July 14, 2017, NVIDIA filed defenses to the infringement allegations including non-infringement with respect to each of the three asserted patents. An oral hearing has been scheduled for February 21, 2019.

On March 31, 2017, the German Patent Court acknowledged receipt of nullity actions filed by NVIDIA challenging the validity of EP1428225 and DE 1020066043668. On June 12, 2017, NVIDIA was notified that the nullity actions against EP1428225 and DE 1020066043668 were served on Polaris and that Polaris has filed a formal response opposing each nullity complaint. On July 14, 2017, the German Patent Court acknowledged receipt of a nullity action filed by NVIDIA challenging the validity of DE 10223167. On September 13, 2017, NVIDIA was notified that the nullity action against DE10223167 was served on Polaris. Polaris has not yet responded to this action.

Accounting for Loss Contingencies

While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe the claims made by the other party in the above ongoing matters are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the actions. As of October 29, 2017, 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.