Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 29, 2012
Notes to financial statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies 3dfx On December 15, 2000, NVIDIA and one of our indirect subsidiaries entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, or APA, to purchase certain graphics chip assets from 3dfx. The transaction closed on April 18, 2001. That acquisition, and 3dfx's October 2002 bankruptcy filing, led to four lawsuits against NVIDIA: two brought by 3dfx's former landlords, one by 3dfx's bankruptcy trustee and the fourth by a committee of 3dfx's equity security holders in the bankruptcy estate. The two landlord cases have been settled with payments from the landlords to NVIDIA, and the equity security holders lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and no appeal was filed. Accordingly, only the bankruptcy trustee suit remains outstanding as more fully explained below. In March 2003, the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent 3dfx's bankruptcy estate served a complaint on NVIDIA asserting claims for, among other things, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and seeking additional payments from us. The Trustee's fraudulent transfer theory alleged that NVIDIA had failed to pay reasonably equivalent value for 3dfx's assets, and sought recovery of the difference between the $70 million paid and the alleged fair value, which the Trustee estimated to exceed $50 million. The Trustee's successor liability theory alleged NVIDIA was effectively 3dfx's legal successor and therefore was responsible for all of 3dfx's unpaid liabilities. On October 13, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court heard the Trustee's motion for summary adjudication, and on December 23, 2005, denied that motion in all material respects and held that NVIDIA may not dispute that the value of the 3dfx transaction was less than $108 million. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee's request to find that the value of the 3dfx assets conveyed to NVIDIA was at least $108 million. In early November 2005, after several months of mediation, NVIDIA and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, or the Creditors' Committee, agreed to a Plan of Liquidation of 3dfx, which included a conditional settlement of the Trustee's claims against us. This conditional settlement was subject to a confirmation process through a vote of creditors and the review and approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The conditional settlement called for a payment by NVIDIA of approximately $30.6 million to the 3dfx estate. Under the settlement, $5.6 million related to various administrative expenses and Trustee fees, and $25.0 million related to the satisfaction of debts and liabilities owed to the general unsecured creditors of 3dfx. Accordingly, during the three month period ended October 30, 2005, we recorded $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx. The Trustee advised that he intended to object to the settlement. The conditional settlement never progressed substantially through the confirmation process. On December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a trial for one portion of the Trustee's case against NVIDIA. On January 2, 2007, NVIDIA terminated the settlement agreement on grounds that the Bankruptcy Court had failed to proceed toward confirmation of the Creditors' Committee's plan. A non-jury trial began on March 21, 2007 on valuation issues in the Trustee's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against NVIDIA. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court tried four questions: (1) what did 3dfx transfer to NVIDIA in the APA; (2) of what was transferred, what qualifies as “property” subject to the Bankruptcy Court's avoidance powers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and relevant bankruptcy code provisions; (3) what is the fair market value of the “property” identified in answer to question (2); and (4) was the $70 million that NVIDIA paid “reasonably equivalent” to the fair market value of that property. The parties completed post-trial briefing on May 25, 2007. On April 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Memorandum Decision After Trial, in which it provided a detailed summary of the trial proceedings and the parties' contentions and evidence and concluded that “the creditors of 3dfx were not injured by the Transaction.” This decision did not entirely dispose of the Trustee's action, however, as the Trustee's claims for successor liability and intentional fraudulent conveyance were still pending. On June 19, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion for summary judgment to convert the Memorandum Decision After Trial to a final judgment. That motion was granted in its entirety and judgment was entered in NVIDIA's favor on September 11, 2008. The Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal from that judgment on September 22, 2008, and on September 25, 2008, NVIDIA exercised its election to have the appeal heard by the United States District Court. The District Court's hearing on the Trustee's appeal was held on June 10, 2009. On December 20, 2010, the District Court issued an Order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's entry of summary judgment in NVIDIA's favor. On January 19, 2011, the Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the conditional settlement reached in November 2005 never progressed through the confirmation process, the Trustee's case still remains pending on appeal. Accordingly, we have not reversed the accrual of $30.6 million - $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx - that we recorded during the three months ended October 30, 2005, pending resolution of the appeal of the Trustee's case. Rambus Inc. On July 10, 2008, Rambus Inc. filed suit against NVIDIA, asserting patent infringement of 17 patents claimed to be owned by Rambus. Rambus sought damages, enhanced damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California in San Jose, California. On July 11, 2008, NVIDIA filed suit against Rambus in the Middle District of North Carolina asserting numerous claims, including antitrust and other claims. NVIDIA sought damages, enhanced damages and injunctive relief. Rambus subsequently dropped two patents from its lawsuit in the Northern District of California. The two cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the San Francisco division of the Northern District of California. On April 13, 2009, the Court issued an order staying motion practice and allowing only certain document discovery to proceed. On February 11, 2011, the Court lifted the stay and ordered that discovery on other issues could proceed. The Court thereafter opened motion practice and discovery with respect to ten patents, referred to as the “Farmwald” and “Barth II” patents. Most of the “Farmwald” patents were also subject to patent reexamination requests. On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint alleging a violation of 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 based on a claim of patent infringement of nine Rambus patents against NVIDIA and 14 other respondents with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC. Rambus subsequently withdrew four of the nine patents at issue. The complaint sought an exclusion order barring the importation of products that allegedly infringe the now five Rambus patents. The ITC instituted the investigation and a hearing was held October 13-20, 2009. The Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination on January 22, 2010, which found the asserted claims of two patents in one patent family infringed but invalid, and the asserted claims of three patents in a separate patent family, valid, infringed and enforceable. This decision was reviewed by the ITC. The ITC issued a Final Decision on July 26, 2010. In its Final Decision, the ITC found that NVIDIA infringed three related patents and issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting import of certain NVIDIA products. NVIDIA appealed certain aspects of the ruling that were unfavorable to NVIDIA. Rambus also appealed certain aspects of the ruling that were unfavorable to Rambus. A hearing was held on October 6, 2011 and a decision regarding the appeal has not yet been issued. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in two related cases that addressed issues material to the disputes between Rambus and certain other parties in the ITC. Those opinions could have positively affected NVIDIA's defenses in all of the cases brought against NVIDIA by Rambus. In those opinions, the Federal Circuit held Rambus destroyed documents when it had a legal duty to preserve them and that, if done in bad faith, Rambus is to bear the “heavy burden” to prove that NVIDIA suffered no prejudice in its ability to defend the cases brought against it by Rambus. In the ITC's Final Decision, despite finding Rambus acted in bad faith, the ITC incorrectly placed the burden on NVIDIA to prove actual prejudice. The Federal Circuit remanded both cases to the respective district courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinions. NVIDIA also sought reexamination of the patents asserted in the ITC, as well as other patents, in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. With respect to the claims asserted in the ITC, the USPTO issued a preliminary ruling invalidating many of the claims. The USPTO issued "Right to Appeal Notices" for the three patents found by the administrative law judge to be valid, enforceable and infringed. In the Right to Appeal Notices, the USPTO Examiner cancelled all asserted claims of one of the patents and allowed the asserted claims on the other two patents. Rambus and NVIDIA both sought review of the USPTO Examiner's adverse findings. On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences found the relevant claims of the three asserted “Barth I” patents subject to reexamination invalid. Rambus has also been subject to an investigation in the European Union. NVIDIA was not a party to that investigation, but sought to intervene in the appeal of the investigation. As a result of Rambus' commitments to resolve that investigation, for a period of five years from the date of the resolution, Rambus must provide a license to memory controller manufacturers, sellers and/or companies that integrate memory controllers into other products. The license terms are set forth in a license made available on Rambus' website, or the Required Rambus License. On August 12, 2010, we entered into the Required Rambus License. Pursuant to the agreement, Rambus charges a royalty of (i) one percent of the net sales price per unit for certain memory controllers and (ii) two percent of the net sales price per unit for certain other memory controllers, provided that the maximum average net sales price per unit for these royalty bearing products shall be deemed not to exceed a maximum of $20. The agreement has a term until December 9, 2014. However, NVIDIA may terminate the agreement with thirty days prior written notice to Rambus. NVIDIA has already provided written notice to Rambus of its' intent to terminate effective immediately upon the removal of the ITC's limited exclusion order. On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed a lawsuit against NVIDIA and several other companies alleging six claims for patent infringement. This lawsuit was brought in the Northern District of California and sought damages, enhanced damages and injunctive relief. On the same day, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that NVIDIA and several other companies violated 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 based on a claim of patent infringement of three Rambus patents. Rambus sought exclusion of certain NVIDIA products from importation into the United States. The Northern District of California stayed the case pending resolution of the ITC investigation. The asserted patents are related to each other, and the three patents in the ITC complaint were also at issue in the lawsuit pending in the Northern District of California. Many of the patents at issue in these lawsuits were also being challenged in Rambus' other disputes with NVIDIA. A hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of the ITC was held from October 12-20, 2011, and no ruling has been issued to date. On February 7, 2012, NVIDIA and Rambus entered into a settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. The two agreements resolve all disputes between NVIDIA and Rambus. The parties are in the process of dismissing all lawsuits, appeals, and ITC actions to the maximum extent allowable by law. The settlement did not have a significant impact on NVIDIA's consolidated financial statements. Product Defect Litigation and Securities Cases Product Defect Litigation In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed against us, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation products used in notebook configurations. On February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under the caption “The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.” On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On August 19, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on that motion on October 19, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27 other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to dismiss as to the other causes of action. The Court gave plaintiffs until December 14, 2009 to file an amended complaint. On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On January 19, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In addition, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all people who purchased computers containing certain of our MCP and GPU products. On May 3, 2010, we filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010. On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. The settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals, including final approval by the court. As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges we recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the implementation of these settlements. On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the potential class members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections. In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3, 2011 the action was transferred to the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the parties. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012. On September 27, 2011, a second putative class action captioned Van der Maas v. NVIDIA Corp., et al., was filed in the Central District of California against NVIDIA, Asustek Computer Inc., and Asustek Computer International on behalf of certain consumers alleged not to be covered by the NVIDIA GPU settlement. This action asserted claims for violations of California's unfair competition laws, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligence and strict liability, and violation of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 17.50. On March 16, 2012, after Plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement with NVIDIA, Asustek Computer, Inc. and Asustek Computer International, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal, and the Court dismissed the action on March 19, 2012. Securities Cases In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the 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 October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel. On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 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. With the exception of the 3dfx and product defect litigation cases, 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

3dfx

On December 15, 2000, NVIDIA and one of our indirect subsidiaries entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, or APA, to purchase certain graphics chip assets from 3dfx. The transaction closed on April 18, 2001. That acquisition, and 3dfx's October 2002 bankruptcy filing, led to four lawsuits against NVIDIA: two brought by 3dfx's former landlords, one by 3dfx's bankruptcy trustee and the fourth by a committee of 3dfx's equity security holders in the bankruptcy estate. The two landlord cases have been settled with payments from the landlords to NVIDIA, and the equity security holders lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and no appeal was filed. Accordingly, only the bankruptcy trustee suit remains outstanding as more fully explained below.

In March 2003, the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent 3dfx's bankruptcy estate served a complaint on NVIDIA asserting claims for, among other things, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and seeking additional payments from us. The Trustee's fraudulent transfer theory alleged that NVIDIA had failed to pay reasonably equivalent value for 3dfx's assets, and sought recovery of the difference between the $70 million paid and the alleged fair value, which the Trustee estimated to exceed $50 million. The Trustee's successor liability theory alleged NVIDIA was effectively 3dfx's legal successor and therefore was responsible for all of 3dfx's unpaid liabilities.

On October 13, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court heard the Trustee's motion for summary adjudication, and on December 23, 2005, denied that motion in all material respects and held that NVIDIA may not dispute that the value of the 3dfx transaction was less than $108 million. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee's request to find that the value of the 3dfx assets conveyed to NVIDIA was at least $108 million.

In early November 2005, after several months of mediation, NVIDIA and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, or the Creditors' Committee, agreed to a Plan of Liquidation of 3dfx, which included a conditional settlement of the Trustee's claims against us. This conditional settlement was subject to a confirmation process through a vote of creditors and the review and approval of the Bankruptcy Court. The conditional settlement called for a payment by NVIDIA of approximately $30.6 million to the 3dfx estate. Under the settlement, $5.6 million related to various administrative expenses and Trustee fees, and $25.0 million related to the satisfaction of debts and liabilities owed to the general unsecured creditors of 3dfx. Accordingly, during the three month period ended October 30, 2005, we recorded $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx. The Trustee advised that he intended to object to the settlement. The conditional settlement never progressed substantially through the confirmation process.

On December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a trial for one portion of the Trustee's case against NVIDIA. On January 2, 2007, NVIDIA terminated the settlement agreement on grounds that the Bankruptcy Court had failed to proceed toward confirmation of the Creditors' Committee's plan. A non-jury trial began on March 21, 2007 on valuation issues in the Trustee's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against NVIDIA. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court tried four questions: (1) what did 3dfx transfer to NVIDIA in the APA; (2) of what was transferred, what qualifies as “property” subject to the Bankruptcy Court's avoidance powers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and relevant bankruptcy code provisions; (3) what is the fair market value of the “property” identified in answer to question (2); and (4) was the $70 million that NVIDIA paid “reasonably equivalent” to the fair market value of that property. The parties completed post-trial briefing on May 25, 2007.

On April 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Memorandum Decision After Trial, in which it provided a detailed summary of the trial proceedings and the parties' contentions and evidence and concluded that “the creditors of 3dfx were not injured by the Transaction.” This decision did not entirely dispose of the Trustee's action, however, as the Trustee's claims for successor liability and intentional fraudulent conveyance were still pending. On June 19, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion for summary judgment to convert the Memorandum Decision After Trial to a final judgment. That motion was granted in its entirety and judgment was entered in NVIDIA's favor on September 11, 2008. The Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal from that judgment on September 22, 2008, and on September 25, 2008, NVIDIA exercised its election to have the appeal heard by the United States District Court.

The District Court's hearing on the Trustee's appeal was held on June 10, 2009. On December 20, 2010, the District Court issued an Order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's entry of summary judgment in NVIDIA's favor. On January 19, 2011, the Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

While the conditional settlement reached in November 2005 never progressed through the confirmation process, the Trustee's case still remains pending on appeal. Accordingly, we have not reversed the accrual of $30.6 million - $5.6 million as a charge to settlement costs and $25.0 million as additional purchase price for 3dfx - that we recorded during the three months ended October 30, 2005, pending resolution of the appeal of the Trustee's case.

Rambus Inc.

On July 10, 2008, Rambus Inc. filed suit against NVIDIA, asserting patent infringement of 17 patents claimed to be owned by Rambus. Rambus sought damages, enhanced damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California in San Jose, California. On July 11, 2008, NVIDIA filed suit against Rambus in the Middle District of North Carolina asserting numerous claims, including antitrust and other claims. NVIDIA sought damages, enhanced damages and injunctive relief. Rambus subsequently dropped two patents from its lawsuit in the Northern District of California. The two cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the San Francisco division of the Northern District of California. On April 13, 2009, the Court issued an order staying motion practice and allowing only certain document discovery to proceed. On February 11, 2011, the Court lifted the stay and ordered that discovery on other issues could proceed. The Court thereafter opened motion practice and discovery with respect to ten patents, referred to as the “Farmwald” and “Barth II” patents. Most of the “Farmwald” patents were also subject to patent reexamination requests.

On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint alleging a violation of 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 based on a claim of patent infringement of nine Rambus patents against NVIDIA and 14 other respondents with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC. Rambus subsequently withdrew four of the nine patents at issue. The complaint sought an exclusion order barring the importation of products that allegedly infringe the now five Rambus patents. The ITC instituted the investigation and a hearing was held October 13-20, 2009. The Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination on January 22, 2010, which found the asserted claims of two patents in one patent family infringed but invalid, and the asserted claims of three patents in a separate patent family, valid, infringed and enforceable. This decision was reviewed by the ITC. The ITC issued a Final Decision on July 26, 2010. In its Final Decision, the ITC found that NVIDIA infringed three related patents and issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting import of certain NVIDIA products. NVIDIA appealed certain aspects of the ruling that were unfavorable to NVIDIA. Rambus also appealed certain aspects of the ruling that were unfavorable to Rambus. A hearing was held on October 6, 2011 and a decision regarding the appeal has not yet been issued.

On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in two related cases that addressed issues material to the disputes between Rambus and certain other parties in the ITC. Those opinions could have positively affected NVIDIA's defenses in all of the cases brought against NVIDIA by Rambus. In those opinions, the Federal Circuit held Rambus destroyed documents when it had a legal duty to preserve them and that, if done in bad faith, Rambus is to bear the “heavy burden” to prove that NVIDIA suffered no prejudice in its ability to defend the cases brought against it by Rambus. In the ITC's Final Decision, despite finding Rambus acted in bad faith, the ITC incorrectly placed the burden on NVIDIA to prove actual prejudice. The Federal Circuit remanded both cases to the respective district courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinions.

NVIDIA also sought reexamination of the patents asserted in the ITC, as well as other patents, in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. With respect to the claims asserted in the ITC, the USPTO issued a preliminary ruling invalidating many of the claims. The USPTO issued "Right to Appeal Notices" for the three patents found by the administrative law judge to be valid, enforceable and infringed. In the Right to Appeal Notices, the USPTO Examiner cancelled all asserted claims of one of the patents and allowed the asserted claims on the other two patents. Rambus and NVIDIA both sought review of the USPTO Examiner's adverse findings. On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences found the relevant claims of the three asserted “Barth I” patents subject to reexamination invalid.

Rambus has also been subject to an investigation in the European Union. NVIDIA was not a party to that investigation, but sought to intervene in the appeal of the investigation. As a result of Rambus' commitments to resolve that investigation, for a period of five years from the date of the resolution, Rambus must provide a license to memory controller manufacturers, sellers and/or companies that integrate memory controllers into other products. The license terms are set forth in a license made available on Rambus' website, or the Required Rambus License. On August 12, 2010, we entered into the Required Rambus License. Pursuant to the agreement, Rambus charges a royalty of (i) one percent of the net sales price per unit for certain memory controllers and (ii) two percent of the net sales price per unit for certain other memory controllers, provided that the maximum average net sales price per unit for these royalty bearing products shall be deemed not to exceed a maximum of $20. The agreement has a term until December 9, 2014. However, NVIDIA may terminate the agreement with thirty days prior written notice to Rambus. NVIDIA has already provided written notice to Rambus of its' intent to terminate effective immediately upon the removal of the ITC's limited exclusion order.

On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed a lawsuit against NVIDIA and several other companies alleging six claims for patent infringement. This lawsuit was brought in the Northern District of California and sought damages, enhanced damages and injunctive relief. On the same day, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that NVIDIA and several other companies violated 19 U.S.C. Section 1337 based on a claim of patent infringement of three Rambus patents. Rambus sought exclusion of certain NVIDIA products from importation into the United States. The Northern District of California stayed the case pending resolution of the ITC investigation. The asserted patents are related to each other, and the three patents in the ITC complaint were also at issue in the lawsuit pending in the Northern District of California. Many of the patents at issue in these lawsuits were also being challenged in Rambus' other disputes with NVIDIA. A hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of the ITC was held from October 12-20, 2011, and no ruling has been issued to date.

On February 7, 2012, NVIDIA and Rambus entered into a settlement agreement and a patent license agreement. The two agreements resolve all disputes between NVIDIA and Rambus. The parties are in the process of dismissing all lawsuits, appeals, and ITC actions to the maximum extent allowable by law. The settlement did not have a significant impact on NVIDIA's consolidated financial statements.

Product Defect Litigation and Securities Cases

Product Defect Litigation

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed against us, asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation products used in notebook configurations. On February 26, 2009, the various lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under the caption “The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.” On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel. On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on that motion on October 19, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27 other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to dismiss as to the other causes of action. The Court gave plaintiffs until December 14, 2009 to file an amended complaint. On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On January 19, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the Breach of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In addition, on April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all people who purchased computers containing certain of our MCP and GPU products. On May 3, 2010, we filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. The settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals, including final approval by the court. As a result of the settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011. In addition, a portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges we recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the implementation of these settlements. On August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release. On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for notice to the potential class members. The Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several objections. In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation. On November 3, 2011 the action was transferred to the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon stipulation of the parties. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims for California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, Breach of Implied Warranty, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 12, 2012.

On September 27, 2011, a second putative class action captioned Van der Maas v. NVIDIA Corp., et al., was filed in the Central District of California against NVIDIA, Asustek Computer Inc., and Asustek Computer International on behalf of certain consumers alleged not to be covered by the NVIDIA GPU settlement. This action asserted claims for violations of California's unfair competition laws, violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligence and strict liability, and violation of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 17.50. On March 16, 2012, after Plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement with NVIDIA, Asustek Computer, Inc. and Asustek Computer International, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal, and the Court dismissed the action on March 19, 2012.

Securities Cases

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the 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 October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL). Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008. On February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit. On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay. On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. On December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010 before Judge Seeborg. On October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On December 2, 2010, co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 14, 2011. Following oral argument, on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

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. With the exception of the 3dfx and product defect litigation cases, 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.