NVIDIA 2009 Annual Report Download - page 43

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 43 of the 2009 NVIDIA annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 141

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the above cases related under the relevant local rules. On December 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the aforementioned consumer class action cases. The District Court held a case
management conference for the above cases on February 23, 2009. On February 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the cases,
as well as two other cases pending against Hewlett-Packard, under the caption “The NVIDIA GPU Litigation” and ordered the
plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2, 2009. On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for appointment of
lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues. A hearing on appointment of lead counsel is scheduled for March 23,
2009. The District Court also ordered that a consolidated amended complaint be filed on or before May 6, 2009.
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. 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. The Writ is still pending in the Court of Appeals. We intend to take all appropriate action with
respect to the above cases.
Intel Corporation
On February 17, 2009, Intel Corporation filed suit against NVIDIA Corporation, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief relating
to a licensing agreement that the parties signed in 2004. The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court. Intel seeks an order from
the Court declaring that the license does not extend to certain future NVIDIA chipset products, and enjoining NVIDIA from stating
that it has licensing rights for these products. The lawsuit seeks no damages from NVIDIA. If Intel successfully obtains such a court
order, we could be unable to sell our MCP products for use with Intel processors and our competitive position would be
harmed. NVIDIA’s response to the Intel complaint is currently due on March 23, 2009. NVIDIA disputes Intel’s positions and
intends to vigorously defend the case.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
No matters were submitted to a vote of our security holders during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009.
35
Source: NVIDIA CORP, 10-K, March 13, 2009 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠