Valuation Assumptions 

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.  

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 $70.0 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. A hearing on theThe appeal is currently scheduled for October 17, 2013.remains pending.

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

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.

After extensive motion practice and litigation, plaintiffs on December 14, 2009 filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint seeking unspecified damages and 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.    

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

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.

Our GPU business leverages our GPU technology across multiple end markets. It now comprises of four primary product lines, including GeForce for desktop and notebook PCs and Macs; Quadro for professional workstations; Tesla for high-performance servers and workstations; and NVIDIA GRID for server graphics solutions. It also includes other related products, licenses and revenue supporting the GPU business, such as memory products. Our Tegra Processor business comprises product lines primarily based on our Tegra system-on-a-chip and modem processor technologies. This includes Tegra for smartphones and tablets for both Android and Windows RT-based devices; automotive computers, including infotainment and navigation systems; and gaming devices such as SHIELD. It also includes other related products, licenses, and revenue supporting the Tegra Processor business such as Icera baseband processors and RF transceivers, embedded products, and licenses and other revenue associated with game consoles.    

In addition to the two reporting segments discussed above, the “All Other” category represents unallocated revenue and expenses which primarily includes licensing revenue from our patent cross licensing agreement with Intel Corporation. Revenue related to this agreement is recognized ratably over the term of our agreement and is not actively managed. This category also includes corporate operating expenses that we do not allocate to our other reporting segments as such expenses are not directly related to the function or operations of our reporting segments. These expenses include certain corporate infrastructure and support costs that are deemed to be enterprise in nature. Additionally, we do not allocate stock-based compensation, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, other acquisition-related costs net warranty charge related to a weak die/packaging material set, and non-recurring chargesexpenses and benefits. The table below presents details of our reportable segments and the “All Other” category.