Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 28, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Inventory Purchase Obligations As of April 28, 2019, we had outstanding inventory purchase obligations totaling $782 million. Capital Purchase Obligations As of April 28, 2019, we had outstanding capital purchase obligations totaling $194 million. Performance Obligations Revenue related to remaining performance obligations represents the amount of contracted license and development arrangements and PCS that has not been recognized. As of April 28, 2019, the amount of our remaining performance obligations that has not been recognized as revenue was $294 million, of which we expect to recognize approximately 57% as revenue over the next twelve months and the remainder thereafter. This amount excludes the value of remaining performance obligations for contracts with an original expected length of one year or less. Accrual for Product Warranty Liabilities The estimated amount of product returns and warranty liabilities was $18 million as of both April 28, 2019 and January 27, 2019. In connection with certain agreements that we have entered in the past, we have provided indemnification to cover the indemnified party for matters such as tax, product, and employee liabilities. We have included intellectual property indemnification provisions in our technology related agreements with third parties. Maximum potential future payments cannot be estimated because many of these agreements do not have a maximum stated liability. We have not recorded any liability in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for such indemnifications. 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 against NVIDIA for patent infringement in the United States and Germany. NVIDIA and Polaris entered into an agreement effective April 3, 2019 that settled the litigation between the parties, which had an immaterial impact on our financial results. The agreement includes a license to NVIDIA for certain patents owned by Polaris, as well as options for NVIDIA to renew the license through the life of the patents. ZiiLabs 1 Patents Lawsuit On October 2, 2017, ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd., or ZiiLabs, a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that NVIDIA had infringed and was continuing to infringe four U.S. patents relating to GPUs, or the ZiiLabs 1 Patents. ZiiLabs is a Bermuda corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative Technology Asia Limited, a Hong Kong company which is itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative Technology Ltd., a publicly traded Singapore company. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, costs, and fees against NVIDIA and an injunction against further direct or indirect infringement of the ZiiLabs 1 Patents. On February 22, 2018, the Delaware Court stayed the ZiiLabs 1 case pending the resolution of the U.S. International Trade Commission, or USITC, investigation over the ZiiLabs 2 patents. On February 1, 2019, NVIDIA entered into an agreement in which it received a license to the ZiiLabs patents and a dismissal of the ZiiLabs 1 and 2 Patent Lawsuits, which had an immaterial impact on our financial results. The ZiiLabs 1 and 2 district court cases were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal filed on February 8, 2019. The Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination on February 12, 2019, granting the motion to terminate the USITC investigation addressing the ZiiLabs 2 patents. ZiiLabs 2 Patents Lawsuits On December 27, 2017, ZiiLabs filed a second complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that NVIDIA has infringed four additional U.S. patents, or the ZiiLabs 2 Patents. The second complaint also sought unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, costs, and fees against NVIDIA and an injunction against further direct or indirect infringement of the ZiiLabs 2 Patents. On December 29, 2017, ZiiLabs filed a request with the USITC to commence an Investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to the unlawful importation of certain graphics processors and products containing the same. ZiiLabs alleged that the unlawful importation resulted from the infringement of the ZiiLabs 2 Patents by products from respondents NVIDIA, ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, EVGA Corporation, Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd., G.B.T. Inc., Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc., PNY Technologies Inc., Zotac International (MCO) Ltd., and Zotac USA Inc. On February 1, 2019, NVIDIA entered into an agreement in which it received a license to the ZiiLabs patents and a dismissal of the ZiiLabs 1 and 2 Patent Lawsuits, which had an immaterial impact on our financial results. The ZiiLabs 1 and 2 district court cases were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal filed on February 8, 2019. The Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination on February 12, 2019, granting the motion to terminate the USITC investigation addressing the ZiiLabs 2 patents. Securities Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA’s officers. The complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018. The plaintiff also alleges that the NVIDIA officers who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of equitable/injunctive or other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities class action was commenced in the Northern District of California, captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783), naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar relief. On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On March 12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case number 4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On January 18, 2019, a shareholder, purporting to act on the behalf of NVIDIA, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Northern District of California, captioned Han v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 19-cv-00341), seeking to assert claims on behalf of NVIDIA against the members of NVIDIA’s board of directors and certain officers. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to NVIDIA’s corporate governance and internal procedures. On February 12, 2019, a substantially similar derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California captioned Yang v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 19-cv-00766), naming the same named defendants, and seeking the same relief. On February 19, 2019, a third substantially similar derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California captioned The Booth Family Trust v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 3:19-cv-00876), naming the same named defendants, and seeking substantially the same relief. On March 12, 2019, the three derivative actions were consolidated under case number 4:19-cv-00341-HSG, and titled In re NVIDIA Corporation Consolidated Derivative Litigation. The parties stipulated to stay the In re NVIDIA Corporation Consolidated Derivative Litigation pending resolution of any motion to dismiss that NVIDIA may file in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from shareholders, with respect to these same or other matters, naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. Litigation Related to Mellanox Merger On May 3, 2019, an alleged stockholder of Mellanox filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the proxy statement filed by Mellanox in connection with the stockholder vote on NVIDIA’s pending acquisition of Mellanox violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and asserting claims under those statutes against Mellanox and its board of directors as well as NVIDIA. The complaint, which is captioned Stein v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-2428 (United States District Court, Northern District of California), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. A number of other alleged Mellanox stockholders have filed substantially similar lawsuits against Mellanox and its directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, but to date, NVIDIA has not been named as a defendant in any of these other lawsuits. Accounting for Loss Contingencies We are engaged in legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of 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. As of April 28, 2019, 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, except as specifically described above, any possible loss or range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Commitments and Contingencies

Inventory Purchase Obligations

As of April 28, 2019, we had outstanding inventory purchase obligations totaling $782 million.

Capital Purchase Obligations

As of April 28, 2019, we had outstanding capital purchase obligations totaling $194 million.

Performance Obligations

Revenue related to remaining performance obligations represents the amount of contracted license and development arrangements and PCS that has not been recognized. As of April 28, 2019, the amount of our remaining performance obligations that has not been recognized as revenue was $294 million, of which we expect to recognize approximately 57% as revenue over the next twelve months and the remainder thereafter. This amount excludes the value of remaining performance obligations for contracts with an original expected length of one year or less.

Accrual for Product Warranty Liabilities

The estimated amount of product returns and warranty liabilities was $18 million as of both April 28, 2019 and January 27, 2019.

In connection with certain agreements that we have entered in the past, we have provided indemnification to cover the indemnified party for matters such as tax, product, and employee liabilities. We have included intellectual property indemnification provisions in our technology related agreements with third parties. Maximum potential future payments cannot be estimated because many of these agreements do not have a maximum stated liability. We have not recorded any liability in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for such indemnifications.

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 against NVIDIA for patent infringement in the United States and Germany.

NVIDIA and Polaris entered into an agreement effective April 3, 2019 that settled the litigation between the parties, which had an immaterial impact on our financial results. The agreement includes a license to NVIDIA for certain patents owned by Polaris, as well as options for NVIDIA to renew the license through the life of the patents.

ZiiLabs 1 Patents Lawsuit

On October 2, 2017, ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd., or ZiiLabs, a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that NVIDIA had infringed and was continuing to infringe four U.S. patents relating to GPUs, or the ZiiLabs 1 Patents. ZiiLabs is a Bermuda corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative Technology Asia Limited, a Hong Kong company which is itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Creative Technology Ltd., a publicly traded Singapore company. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, costs, and fees against NVIDIA and an injunction against further direct or indirect infringement of the ZiiLabs 1 Patents.

On February 22, 2018, the Delaware Court stayed the ZiiLabs 1 case pending the resolution of the U.S. International Trade Commission, or USITC, investigation over the ZiiLabs 2 patents.

On February 1, 2019, NVIDIA entered into an agreement in which it received a license to the ZiiLabs patents and a dismissal of the ZiiLabs 1 and 2 Patent Lawsuits, which had an immaterial impact on our financial results. The ZiiLabs 1 and 2 district court cases were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal filed on February 8, 2019. The Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination on February 12, 2019, granting the motion to terminate the USITC investigation addressing the ZiiLabs 2 patents.

ZiiLabs 2 Patents Lawsuits

On December 27, 2017, ZiiLabs filed a second complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that NVIDIA has infringed four additional U.S. patents, or the ZiiLabs 2 Patents. The second complaint also sought unspecified monetary damages, enhanced damages, interest, costs, and fees against NVIDIA and an injunction against further direct or indirect infringement of the ZiiLabs 2 Patents.

On December 29, 2017, ZiiLabs filed a request with the USITC to commence an Investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to the unlawful importation of certain graphics processors and products containing the same. ZiiLabs alleged that the unlawful importation resulted from the infringement of the ZiiLabs 2 Patents by products from respondents NVIDIA, ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, EVGA Corporation, Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd., G.B.T. Inc., Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc., PNY Technologies Inc., Zotac International (MCO) Ltd., and Zotac USA Inc.

Securities Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits

On December 21, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Iron Workers Joint Funds v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-7669), naming as defendants NVIDIA and certain of NVIDIA’s officers. The complaint asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018. The plaintiff also alleges that the NVIDIA officers who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of equitable/injunctive or other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On December 28, 2018, a substantially similar purported securities class action was commenced in the Northern District of California, captioned Oto v. Nvidia Corporation, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-07783), naming the same defendants, and seeking substantially similar relief. On February 19, 2019, a number of shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their respective counsel to be appointed lead counsel. On March 12, 2019, the two cases were consolidated under case number 4:18-cv-07669-HSG and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On January 18, 2019, a shareholder, purporting to act on the behalf of NVIDIA, filed a derivative lawsuit in the Northern District of California, captioned Han v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 19-cv-00341), seeking to assert claims on behalf of NVIDIA against the members of NVIDIA’s board of directors and certain officers. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to NVIDIA’s corporate governance and internal procedures. On February 12, 2019, a substantially similar derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California captioned Yang v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 19-cv-00766), naming the same named defendants, and seeking the same relief. On February 19, 2019, a third substantially similar derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California captioned The Booth Family Trust v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 3:19-cv-00876), naming the same named defendants, and seeking substantially the same relief. On March 12, 2019, the three derivative actions were consolidated under case number 4:19-cv-00341-HSG, and titled In re NVIDIA Corporation Consolidated Derivative Litigation. The parties stipulated to stay the In re NVIDIA Corporation Consolidated Derivative Litigation pending resolution of any motion to dismiss that NVIDIA may file in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from shareholders, with respect to these same or other matters, naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants.

Litigation Related to Mellanox Merger

On May 3, 2019, an alleged stockholder of Mellanox filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the proxy statement filed by Mellanox in connection with the stockholder vote on NVIDIA’s pending acquisition of Mellanox violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and asserting claims under those statutes against Mellanox and its board of directors as well as NVIDIA. The complaint, which is captioned Stein v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-2428 (United States District Court, Northern District of California), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. A number of other alleged Mellanox stockholders have filed substantially similar lawsuits against Mellanox and its directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, but to date, NVIDIA has not been named as a defendant in any of these other lawsuits.

Accounting for Loss Contingencies

We are engaged in legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of 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. As of April 28, 2019, 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, except as specifically described above, any possible loss or range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.