Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2017
Notes to financial statements [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Operating Lease Financing Arrangement In 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 in December 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 have been overseeing the construction of the headquarters building. The banks committed to fund up to $380 million of costs relating to construction. Advances have been 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 is 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 the financial covenant to maintain a maximum total leverage ratio not to exceed 3.5 to 1.0. If certain events of default occur and are continuing under the operative agreements, the banks may accelerate repayment of their investment under the lease. Litigation Polaris Innovations Limited On May 16, 2016, Polaris Innovations Limited, a non-practicing entity and wholly-owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN 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 on six of its U.S. patents related generally to 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 transferred the case to the Northern District of California. A trial date has not yet been set. On December 7, 2016, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request 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. An institution decision is expected in both of these matters in June 2017. 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. If instituted, the USPTO will conduct a trial on the validity of each 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. NVIDIA has retained counsel in Germany to defend this case. A trial date has not yet been set. On March 31, 2017, the German Patent Court acknowledged receipt of nullity actions filed by NVIDIA challenging the validity of EP1428225 and DE 1020066043668. Polaris has not yet responded to these actions. On May 9, 2017, NVIDIA filed a Motion to Stay the action pending final resolution of the inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,886,122; 7,124,325; and 8,161,344. If the motion is granted, the action will be suspended until the inter partes reviews are finally resolved. Accounting for Loss Contingencies While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe the claims made by other party in the above ongoing matters are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the actions. As of April 30, 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 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 in December 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 have been overseeing the construction of the headquarters building. The banks committed to fund up to $380 million of costs relating to construction. Advances have been 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 is 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 the financial covenant to maintain a maximum total leverage ratio not to exceed 3.5 to 1.0. If certain events of default occur and are continuing under the operative agreements, the banks may accelerate repayment of their investment under the lease.

Litigation

Polaris Innovations Limited

On May 16, 2016, Polaris Innovations Limited, a non-practicing entity and wholly-owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN 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 on six of its U.S. patents related generally to 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 transferred the case to the Northern District of California. A trial date has not yet been set.

On December 7, 2016, NVIDIA filed an inter partes review request 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. An institution decision is expected in both of these matters in June 2017. 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. If instituted, the USPTO will conduct a trial on the validity of each 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. NVIDIA has retained counsel in Germany to defend this case. A trial date has not yet been set. On March 31, 2017, the German Patent Court acknowledged receipt of nullity actions filed by NVIDIA challenging the validity of EP1428225 and DE 1020066043668. Polaris has not yet responded to these actions.

On May 9, 2017, NVIDIA filed a Motion to Stay the action pending final resolution of the inter partes review of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,886,122; 7,124,325; and 8,161,344. If the motion is granted, the action will be suspended until the inter partes reviews are finally resolved.

Accounting for Loss Contingencies

While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe the claims made by other party in the above ongoing matters are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the actions. As of April 30, 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.