XML 15 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Oct. 27, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations As of October 27, 2019, we had outstanding inventory purchase obligations totaling $980 million and other purchase obligations totaling $138 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 October 27, 2019, the amount of our remaining performance obligations that has not been recognized as revenue was $395 million, of which we expect to recognize approximately 47% 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 $17 million and $18 million as of October 27, 2019 and January 27, 2019, respectively, and the activity related to the warranty liabilities were not significant. 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 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. 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 plaintiffs and lead counsel. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated 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 May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. The plaintiffs also allege that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On August 2, 2019, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the named defendants. On January 18, 2019, a shareholder, purporting to act on 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. On September 24, 2019, two shareholders, purporting to act on behalf of NVIDIA, filed two identical lawsuits in the District of Delaware. One is captioned Lipchitz v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01795-UNA) and the other is captioned Nelson v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01798-UNA). The lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, misappropriation of information, corporate waste 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 plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief, including disgorgement of profits from the sale of NVIDIA stock and unspecified corporate governance measures. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from shareholders, with respect to these same or other matters, naming NVIDIA and/or its officers and directors as defendants. Litigation Related to Acquisition of Mellanox 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 Exchange Act 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 NVIDIA was not named as a defendant in any of these other lawsuits. As of October 14, 2019, all stockholder lawsuits relating to NVIDIA’s pending acquisition of Mellanox, including the Stein lawsuit, had been voluntarily dismissed by the respective plaintiffs. 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 October 27, 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration