ITEM 1.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

See accompanying Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

 

Basis of Presentation

 

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or U.S. GAAP, for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, Regulation S-X. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments except as otherwise noted, considered necessary for a fair statement of results of operations and financial position have been included. The results for the interim periods presented are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for any future period. The following information should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2013 .  

Fiscal Year

 

We operate on a 52- or 53-week year, ending on the last Sunday in January.  Fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2013 are both 52-week years. The first quarters of fiscal years 2014 and 2013 are both 13-week quarters.

Principles of Consolidation

 

Our condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of NVIDIA Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All material inter-company balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Reclassifications

Certain prior fiscal year balances have been reclassified to conform to the current fiscal year presentation.

Use of Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, cash equivalents and marketable securities, accounts receivable, inventories, income taxes, goodwill, stock-based compensation, warranty liabilities, litigation, investigation and settlement costs and other contingencies. These estimates are based on historical facts and various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  

Revenue Recognition

Product Revenue

 

We recognize revenue from product sales when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the product has been delivered, the price is fixed or determinable and collection of the related receivable is reasonably assured. For most sales, we use a binding purchase order and in certain cases we use a contractual agreement as evidence of an arrangement. We consider delivery to occur upon shipment provided title and risk of loss have passed to the customer. At the point of sale, we assess whether the arrangement fee is fixed or determinable and whether collection is reasonably assured. If we determine that collection of a fee is not reasonably assured, we defer the fee and recognize revenue at the time collection becomes reasonably assured, which is generally upon receipt of payment.

 

Our policy on sales to certain distributors, with rights of return, is to defer recognition of revenue and related cost of revenue until the distributors resell the product, as the level of returns cannot be reasonably estimated. Our customer programs primarily involve rebates, which are designed to serve as sales incentives to resellers of our products in various target markets. We accrue for 100% of the potential rebates and do not apply a breakage factor. We recognize a liability for these rebates at the later of the date at which we record the related revenue or the date at which we offer the rebate. Rebates typically expire six months from the date of the original sale, unless we reasonably believe that the customer intends to claim the rebate. Unclaimed rebates are reversed to revenue.

Our customer programs also include marketing development funds, or MDFs. We account for MDFs as either a reduction of revenue or an operating expense, depending on the nature of the program. MDFs represent monies paid to retailers, system builders, original equipment manufacturers, distributors and add-in card partners that are earmarked for market segment development and expansion and typically are designed to support our partners’ activities while also promoting NVIDIA products. Depending on market conditions, we may take actions to increase amounts offered under customer programs, possibly resulting in an incremental reduction of revenue at the time such programs are offered.

We also record a reduction to revenue by establishing a sales return allowance for estimated product returns at the time revenue is recognized, based primarily on historical return rates. However, if product returns for a particular fiscal period exceed historical return rates we may determine that additional sales return allowances are required to properly reflect our estimated exposure for product returns.

 

License and Development Revenue

 

For license arrangements that require significant customization of our intellectual property components, we generally recognize the related revenue over the period that services are performed. For most license and service arrangements, we determine progress to completion based on actual direct labor hours incurred to date as a percentage of the estimated total direct labor hours required to complete the project. We periodically evaluate the actual status of each project to ensure that the estimates to complete each contract remain accurate. A provision for estimated losses on contracts is made in the period in which the loss becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated. Costs incurred in advance of revenue recognized are recorded as deferred costs on uncompleted contracts. If the amount billed exceeds the amount of revenue recognized, the excess amount is recorded as deferred revenue. Revenue recognized in any period is dependent on our progress toward completion of projects in progress. Significant management judgment and discretion are used to estimate total direct labor hours. Any changes in or deviations from these estimates could have a material effect on the amount of revenue we recognize in any period.

 

For license arrangements that do not require significant customization but where we are obligated to provide further deliverables over the term of the license agreement, we record revenue over the life of the license term, with consideration received in advance of the performance period classified as deferred revenue.

Royalty revenue is recognized related to the distribution or sale of products that use our technologies under license agreements with third parties.  We recognize royalty revenue upon receipt of a confirmation of earned royalties and when collectability is reasonably assured from the applicable licensee.

 

Inventories

 

Inventory cost is computed on an adjusted standard basis, which approximates actual cost on an average or first-in, first-out basis. Inventory costs consist primarily of the cost of semiconductors purchased from subcontractors, including wafer fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, manufacturing support costs, including labor and overhead associated with such purchases, final test yield fallout, inventory provisions and shipping costs. We write down our inventory to the lower of cost or estimated market value. Excess, obsolete or unmarketable inventory is completely written off based upon assumptions about future demand, future product purchase commitments, estimated manufacturing yield levels and market conditions.  If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, or if our current inventory or future product purchase commitments to our suppliers exceed our forecasted future demand for such products, additional future inventory write-downs may be required that could adversely affect our operating results. Inventory reserves once established are not reversed until the related inventory has been sold or scrapped.  If actual market conditions are more favorable than expected and we sell products that we have previously written down, our reported gross margin would be favorably impacted.

  Adoption of New and Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued updated authoritative guidance requiring entities to report the effect of significant reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the respective line items in net income if the amount being reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in its entirety to net income. For other amounts that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety from accumulated other comprehensive income to net income in the same reporting period, an entity is required to cross-reference other disclosures required under U.S. GAAP that provide additional detail about those amounts. We adopted this guidance in our interim period ended April 28, 2013. The adoption of this guidance did not impact our financial statements, as the guidance is related to disclosure only, and we have not had significant reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income.

Note 2 - Stock-Based Compensation

 

We measure stock-based compensation expense based on the estimated fair value of equity awards at the grant date, and recognize the expense using a straight-line attribution method over the requisite employee service period. We estimate the fair value of employee stock options on the date of grant using a binomial model and we use the closing trading price of our common stock on the date of grant, minus a dividend yield discount, as the fair value of awards of restricted stock units, or RSUs.  We estimate the fair value of shares to be issued under our employee stock purchase plan using the Black-Scholes model at the commencement of an offering period in March and September of each year.  Stock-based compensation for our employee stock purchase plan is expensed using an accelerated amortization model.

Our consolidated statements of income include stock-based compensation expense, net of amounts capitalized as inventory, as follows:

During the three months ended April 28, 2013 , we granted approximately 2.8 million stock options, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $8.7 million and a weighted average grant-date fair value of $3.11 per option. During the three months ended April 28, 2013 , we granted approximately 4.9 million RSUs with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $57.4 million and a weighted average grant-date fair value of $11.72 per RSU.  

During the three months ended April 29, 2012 , we granted approximately 2.9 million stock options, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $16.2 million and a weighted average grant-date fair value of $5.52 per option.  During the three months ended April 29, 2012 , we granted approximately 3.3 million RSUs with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $48.2 million and a weighted average grant-date fair value of $14.58 per RSU.  

Of the estimated total grant-date fair value, we estimated that the stock-based compensation expense related to the equity awards that were not expected to vest was $11.8 million and $11.5 million for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 , respectively. As of April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 , the aggregate amount of unearned stock-based compensation expense related to our equity awards was $238.4 million and $212.9 million , respectively, adjusted for estimated forfeitures.  As of April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 , we expected to recognize the unearned stock-based compensation expense related to stock options over an estimated weighted average amortization period of 2.8 years and 2.7 years, respectively. As of April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 , we expected to recognize the unearned stock-based compensation expense related to RSUs over an estimated weighted average amortization period of 3.0 years and 2.8 years, respectively.

Valuation Assumptions  

We determine the fair value of stock option awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model that is affected by our stock price as well as assumptions regarding a number of highly complex and subjective variables. These variables include, but are not limited to, weighted average expected term, risk-free interest rate, expected stock price volatility, dividend yield, actual and projected employee stock option exercise behaviors, vesting schedules and death and disability probabilities. We segregate options into groups of employees with relatively homogeneous exercise behavior in order to calculate the best estimate of fair value using the binomial valuation model. The expected life of employee stock options is a derived output of our valuation model and is impacted by the underlying assumptions of our company. The risk-free interest rate assumption is based upon observed interest rates on Treasury bills appropriate for the term of our employee stock options. Our management has determined that the use of implied volatility is expected to be more reflective of market conditions and, therefore, can reasonably be expected to be a better indicator of our expected volatility than historical volatility. Dividend yield is based on history and expectation of dividend payouts. Our RSU awards are not eligible for cash dividends prior to vesting; therefore, the fair value of RSUs is discounted by the dividend yield.

Prior to the initial declaration of a quarterly cash dividend on November 8, 2012, the fair value of our equity awards was based on an expected dividend yield of 0% reflecting our prior history in which we had not paid and did not expect to pay cash dividends on our common stock. For awards granted on or subsequent to November 8, 2012, we now use a dividend yield at grant date based on the per share dividends declared during the most recent quarter.

Additionally, for employee stock option and RSU awards, we estimate forfeitures annually and revise the estimates of forfeiture in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Forfeitures are estimated based on historical experience. If factors change and we employ different assumptions in the application of accounting standards in future periods, the compensation expense that we record under these accounting standards may differ significantly from what we have recorded in the current period.

The fair value of stock options granted under our equity incentive plans and shares issued under our employee stock purchase plan have been estimated at the date of grant with the following assumptions:

Note 4 – Income Taxes

 We recognized income tax expense of $10.2 million and $16.7 million for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012, respectively.   Income tax expense as a percentage of income before taxes, or our effective tax rate, was 11.6% and 21.6% for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012, respectively.

The decrease in our effective tax rate in fiscal year 2014 as compared to the same period in the prior fiscal year was primarily related to the benefit of the U.S. federal research tax credit which was re-enacted on January 2, 2013 under the American Taxpayer Relief Act, and favorable discrete events that occurred in the first three months of fiscal year 2014 primarily attributable to the expiration of statute of limitation in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions.

Our effective tax rate on income before tax for the first three months of fiscal year 2014 of 11.6% and fiscal year 2013 of 21.6% were lower than the United States federal statutory rate of 35% due primarily to income earned in jurisdictions where the tax rate is lower than the United States federal statutory tax, and for fiscal year 2014 due to the benefit of the U.S. federal research tax credit.  

For the three months ended April 28, 2013, there have been no material changes to our tax years that remain subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions.  Additionally, there have been no other material changes to our unrecognized tax benefits and any related interest or penalties from our fiscal year ended January 27, 2013, other than the recognition of tax benefits related to the expiration of statute of limitation in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions in the three months ended April 28, 2013.

While we believe that we have adequately provided for all uncertain tax positions, or tax positions where it is believed not more-likely-than-not that the position will be sustained upon examination, amounts asserted by tax authorities could be greater or less than our accrued position. Accordingly, our provisions on federal, state and foreign tax related matters to be recorded in the future may change as revised estimates are made or the underlying matters are settled or otherwise resolved with the respective tax authorities. As of April 28, 2013, we do not believe that our estimates, as otherwise provided for, on such tax positions will significantly increase or decrease within the next twelve months.

Note 5 - Marketable Securities

 

All of our cash equivalents and marketable securities are classified as “available-for-sale” securities. These securities are reported at fair value with the related unrealized gains and losses included in accumulated other comprehensive income, a component of stockholders’ equity, net of tax.

We performed an impairment review of our investment portfolio as of April 28, 2013 . Based on our quarterly impairment review and having considered the guidance in the relevant accounting literature, we concluded that our investments were appropriately valued and that no other than temporary impairment charges were necessary on our portfolio as of April 28, 2013 . The following is a summary of cash equivalents and marketable securities at April 28, 2013 and January 27, 2013 : 

 

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of cash equivalents and marketable securities which are primarily debt instruments are classified as available-for-sale at April 28, 2013 and January 27, 2013 and are shown below by contractual maturity.  

 

Net realized gains for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 were not significant.

Note 6 – Fair Value of Cash Equivalents and Marketable Securities

We measure our cash equivalents and marketable securities at fair value. The fair values of our financial assets and liabilities are determined using quoted market prices of identical assets or quoted market prices of similar assets from active markets.  Our Level 1 assets consist of our money market fund deposits. We classify securities within Level 1 assets when the fair value is obtained from real time quotes for transactions in active exchange markets involving identical assets.  Our available-for-sale securities are classified as having Level 2 inputs.  Our Level 2 assets are valued utilizing a market approach where the market prices of similar assets are provided by a variety of independent industry standard data providers to our investment custodian.  There were no significant transfers between Levels 1 and 2 assets for the three months ended April 28, 2013 .

Financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value are summarized below:

 

 

 

Note 7 - 3dfx

During fiscal year 2002, we completed the purchase of certain assets from 3dfx Interactive, Inc., or 3dfx, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $ 74.2 million . On December 15, 2000, NVIDIA Corporation and one of our indirect subsidiaries entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement, or the APA, which closed on April 18, 2001, to purchase certain graphics chip assets from 3dfx.

 

In October 2002, 3dfx filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. In March 2003, the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to represent 3dfx’s bankruptcy estate served his complaint on NVIDIA.  The Trustee’s complaint asserted claims for, among other things, successor liability and fraudulent transfer and sought additional payments from us. In early November 2005, 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 reached in November 2005 never progressed through the confirmation process and the Trustee’s case still remains pending appeal.  As such, 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. 

The 3dfx asset purchase price of $ 95.0 million and $ 4.2 million of direct transaction costs were allocated based on fair values presented below. The final allocation of the purchase price of the 3dfx assets is contingent upon the outcome of all of the 3dfx litigation. Please refer to Note 11 of these Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for further information regarding this litigation. 

The increase in gross carrying amount of intangible assets is primarily due to new purchases of licenses to technology and patents during the first quarter of fiscal year 2014.

Amortization expense associated with intangible assets for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 was $17.4 million and $16.6 million , respectively. Amortization expense increased compared to the prior year primarily due to the addition of a licensed technology and a patent portfolio. Future amortization expense related to the net carrying amount of intangible assets at April 28, 2013 is estimated to be $56.6 million for the remainder of fiscal year 2014, $75.3 million in fiscal year 2015 , $68.2 million in fiscal year 2016 , $51.7 million in fiscal year 2017 , $48.7 million in fiscal year 2018 and a total of $36.2 million in fiscal year 2019 and fiscal years subsequent to fiscal year 2019 .

At April 28, 2013 , we had outstanding inventory purchase obligations totaling approximately $ 538 million .

      

(1)  Please refer to Note 1 of these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion regarding the nature of accrued customer programs and their accounting treatment related to our revenue recognition policies and estimates.

(2)  Please refer to Note 10 of these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion regarding the warranty accrual.

(3)  Please refer to Note 11 of these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion regarding the 3dfx litigation.

Note 10 - Guarantees

 

U.S. GAAP requires that upon issuance of a guarantee, the guarantor must recognize a liability for the fair value of the obligation it assumes under that guarantee. In addition, U.S. GAAP requires disclosures about the guarantees that an entity has issued, including a tabular reconciliation of the changes of the entity’s product warranty liabilities.

  

Accrual for Product Warranty Liabilities

We record a reduction to revenue for estimated product returns at the time revenue is recognized primarily based on historical return rates. Cost of revenue includes the estimated cost of product warranties.  Under limited circumstances, we may offer an extended limited warranty to customers for certain products.  Additionally, we accrue for known warranty and indemnification issues if a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. The estimated product warranty liabilities for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 were as follows: 

 

(1) Includes $9.6 million and $13.2 million for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 , respectively, related to warranty accrual associated with incremental repair and replacement costs from a weak die/packaging material set. 

(2) Includes $0.5 million and $1.2 million for the three months ended April 28, 2013 and April 29, 2012 , respectively, in payments related to the warranty accrual associated with incremental repair and replacement costs from a weak die/packaging material set.

 

In connection with certain agreements that we have executed in the past, we have at times provided indemnities to cover the indemnified party for matters such as tax, product and employee liabilities. We have also on occasion 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. As such, we have not recorded any liability in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for such indemnifications.

 

Note 11 - 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 $70.0 million paid and the alleged fair value, which the Trustee estimated to exceed $50.0 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 $108.0 million . The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee's request to find that the value of the 3dfx assets conveyed to NVIDIA was at least $108.0 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 $70.0 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 the appeal is currently scheduled for October 17, 2013.

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. 

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.

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.    

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. The appeal is currently pending.

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 July 12, 2012, the District Court dismissed six of the seven asserted causes of action with prejudice, allowing only one cause of action for violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute to continue, and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consistent with its Order. On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff indicated that he would not be filing an amended complaint. The Granfield case is now over.

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. The appeal has been fully briefed, but the Ninth Circuit has not yet set a hearing date.

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.

Note 12 - Stockholders’ Equity

 

Stock Repurchase Program

 

In fiscal year 2007, our Board of Directors authorized us, subject to certain specifications, to repurchase shares of our common stock up to an aggregate maximum amount of $2.7 billion through May 2013.  In October 2012, the Board extended the program through December 2014. The repurchases will be made from time to time in the open market, in privately negotiated transactions, or in structured stock repurchase programs, and may be made in one or more larger repurchases, in compliance with Rule 10b-18 of the Securities Exchange Act, subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements, and other factors. The program does not obligate NVIDIA to acquire any particular amount of common stock and the program may be suspended at any time at our discretion. As part of our share repurchase program, we have entered into, and we may continue to enter into, structured share repurchase transactions with financial institutions. These agreements generally require that we make an up-front payment in exchange for the right to receive a fixed number of shares of our common stock upon execution of the agreement, and a potential incremental number of shares of our common stock, within a pre-determined range, at the end of the term of the agreement.

  

Through April 28, 2013 , we have repurchased an aggregate of 107.3 million shares under our stock repurchase program for a total cost of $1.66 billion .  As of April 28, 2013 , we are authorized, subject to certain specifications, to repurchase additional shares of our common stock up to $1.04 billion through December 2014. 

 

  

Convertible Preferred Stock

 

As of April 28, 2013 and January 27, 2013 , there were no shares of preferred stock outstanding.

 

Common Stock

 

We are authorized to issue up to 2,000,000,000 shares of our common stock at $0.001 per share par value.

      

Note 13 - Segment Information

 

Our Chief Executive Officer, who is considered to be our chief operating decision maker, or CODM, reviews financial information presented on an operating segment basis for purposes of making operating decisions and assessing financial performance. Our operating segments are equivalent to our reportable segments. During the last several years, we have operated and reported three reporting segments to our CODM: the GPU business, the Professional Solutions business, and the Consumer Products business. However, during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013, we began reporting two segments to reflect the way we are now managing our businesses internally which is based on whether the underlying products leverage our GPU or our Tegra Processor technologies. Comparative periods presented reflect this change.

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 charges and benefits. The table below presents details of our reportable segments and the “All Other” category.

Our CODM does not review any information regarding total assets on a reporting segment basis. Reporting segments do not record intersegment revenue, and, accordingly, there is none to be reported. The accounting policies for segment reporting are the same as for NVIDIA as a whole.