Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	5. Commitments and Contingencies Leases and Purchase Commitments The Company leases office space in Palo Alto and Newark, California under operating leases. As of April 30, 2017, the Company had $1.0 million outstanding under operating leases with lease periods expiring through November 2020. In January 2015, the Company entered into a capital lease for computer equipment that was scheduled to mature in December 2016 with the right to purchase the equipment at maturity for one dollar. The Company repaid the outstanding balance of $0.6 million in April 2016. Total interest expense recognized was $18,000 for the three months ended April 30, 2016. Rent expense was $0.4 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended April 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of April 30, 2017, non-cancelable purchase commitments were $3.5 million. Legal Proceedings Oregon Litigation On August 30, 2016 the Oregon Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) issued tax assessments against the Company for the Oregon Emergency Communications Tax (the “Tax”), which the DOR alleges Ooma should have collected from its subscribers in Oregon and remitted to the DOR during the period starting on January 1, 2013 and ending on March 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Assessments”). On November 28, 2016 the Company filed a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court, asserting that the Assessments against Ooma are in violation of applicable Oregon law and are barred by the United States Constitution, and asking the Oregon Tax Court to abate the Assessments in full (the “Complaint”, and such dispute, the “Oregon Tax Litigation”). On February 10, 2017, the DOR filed an answer to the Compliant, and during April of 2017 the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the Tax to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Oregon, and therefore the application of the Tax against Ooma and the Assessments are barred by the United States Constitution. The Company will continue to vigorously litigate the Complaint in pursuit of the full abatement of the Assessments. Deep Green Wireless Litigation On June 8, 2016, plaintiff Deep Green Wireless LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ooma, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE42,714 (the “Deep Green Wireless Litigation”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. On July 29, 2016 the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims, on August 2, 2016 the Company filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, and on February 21, 2017 magistrate judge Roy S. Payne granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California set the initial case management conference for July 28, 2017. Based upon its investigation, the Company does not believe that its products infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the aforementioned patent, and plans to continue vigorously defending against the plaintiff’s claim. Securities Litigation On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of our Initial Public Offering on July 17, 2015 (the “IPO”). Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016 all three complaints were combined into a “consolidated complaint” filed in the same court (the “Securities Litigation”). The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in our IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The consolidated complaint alleges that Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On July 1, 2016 Ooma filed its answer to the complaint, and on August 26, 2016 Ooma filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Ooma believes that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and is vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation. Berks County Litigation On January 21, 2016 the County of Berks, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas naming the Company and 113 other telephone service providers as defendants (the “Berks County Litigation”), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with alleged violations of the Pennsylvania 911 Emergency Communication Services Act, 35 Pa.C.S.A. §5301 et seq. (“PA 911 Act”) for failure to collect from subscribers and remit certain fees pursuant to the PA 911 Act. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that we must comply with the PA 911 Act, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On May 17, 2016 the court issued an order overruling the defendants’ joint preliminary objections, which are, in essence, the Pennsylvania equivalent of a motion to dismiss. Notwithstanding such adverse order, the Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the PA 911 Act to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Pennsylvania, and therefore the plaintiff’s claims are without merit. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending this lawsuit. The Company is party to actions and proceedings incident to the Company’s business in the ordinary course of business, including litigation regarding its intellectual property, challenges to the enforceability or validity of its intellectual property, and claims that the Company’s products or services infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. In connection with the Oregon Litigation, Deep Green Wireless Litigation, Securities Litigation and Berks County Litigation, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any material losses that is reasonably possible to result from each such proceeding is not reasonably estimable. Accordingly, no material reserves have been recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to any of such litigations. Indemnification The Company enters into standard indemnification arrangements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, in connection with any trade secret, copyright, patent or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements is not determinable because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future, but have not yet been made. The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, other than liabilities arising from willful misconduct of the individual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. To date the Company has not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. No liability associated with such indemnifications has been recorded to date.

5. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases and Purchase Commitments

The Company leases office space in Palo Alto and Newark, California under operating leases. As of April 30, 2017, the Company had $1.0 million outstanding under operating leases with lease periods expiring through November 2020.

In January 2015, the Company entered into a capital lease for computer equipment that was scheduled to mature in December 2016 with the right to purchase the equipment at maturity for one dollar. The Company repaid the outstanding balance of $0.6 million in April 2016. Total interest expense recognized was $18,000 for the three months ended April 30, 2016.

Rent expense was $0.4 million and $0.5 million for the three months ended April 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

As of April 30, 2017, non-cancelable purchase commitments were $3.5 million.

Legal Proceedings

Oregon Litigation

On August 30, 2016 the Oregon Department of Revenue (the “DOR”) issued tax assessments against the Company for the Oregon Emergency Communications Tax (the “Tax”), which the DOR alleges Ooma should have collected from its subscribers in Oregon and remitted to the DOR during the period starting on January 1, 2013 and ending on March 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Assessments”). On November 28, 2016 the Company filed a complaint in the Oregon Tax Court, asserting that the Assessments against Ooma are in violation of applicable Oregon law and are barred by the United States Constitution, and asking the Oregon Tax Court to abate the Assessments in full (the “Complaint”, and such dispute, the “Oregon Tax Litigation”). On February 10, 2017, the DOR filed an answer to the Compliant, and during April of 2017 the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the Tax to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Oregon, and therefore the application of the Tax against Ooma and the Assessments are barred by the United States Constitution. The Company will continue to vigorously litigate the Complaint in pursuit of the full abatement of the Assessments.

Deep Green Wireless Litigation

On June 8, 2016, plaintiff Deep Green Wireless LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Ooma, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE42,714 (the “Deep Green Wireless Litigation”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. On July 29, 2016 the Company filed its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims, on August 2, 2016 the Company filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, and on February 21, 2017 magistrate judge Roy S. Payne granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California set the initial case management conference for July 28, 2017. Based upon its investigation, the Company does not believe that its products infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the aforementioned patent, and plans to continue vigorously defending against the plaintiff’s claim.

Securities Litigation

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959) against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of our Initial Public Offering on July 17, 2015 (the “IPO”). Since that time two additional purported class actions making substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016 all three complaints were combined into a “consolidated complaint” filed in the same court (the “Securities Litigation”). The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in our IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The consolidated complaint alleges that Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) by issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On July 1, 2016 Ooma filed its answer to the complaint, and on August 26, 2016 Ooma filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Ooma believes that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and is vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation.

Berks County Litigation

On January 21, 2016 the County of Berks, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas naming the Company and 113 other telephone service providers as defendants (the “Berks County Litigation”), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with alleged violations of the Pennsylvania 911 Emergency Communication Services Act, 35 Pa.C.S.A. §5301 et seq. (“PA 911 Act”) for failure to collect from subscribers and remit certain fees pursuant to the PA 911 Act. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that we must comply with the PA 911 Act, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On May 17, 2016 the court issued an order overruling the defendants’ joint preliminary objections, which are, in essence, the Pennsylvania equivalent of a motion to dismiss. Notwithstanding such adverse order, the Company believes that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution bars the application of the PA 911 Act to the Company, since the Company has no employees, property or other indicia of a “substantial nexus” with the State of Pennsylvania, and therefore the plaintiff’s claims are without merit. The Company intends to continue vigorously defending this lawsuit.

The Company is party to actions and proceedings incident to the Company’s business in the ordinary course of business, including litigation regarding its intellectual property, challenges to the enforceability or validity of its intellectual property, and claims that the Company’s products or services infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated.

In connection with the Oregon Litigation, Deep Green Wireless Litigation, Securities Litigation and Berks County Litigation, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any material losses that is reasonably possible to result from each such proceeding is not reasonably estimable. Accordingly, no material reserves have been recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to any of such litigations.

Indemnification

The Company enters into standard indemnification arrangements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, in connection with any trade secret, copyright, patent or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these agreements is not determinable because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future, but have not yet been made.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify its directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, other than liabilities arising from willful misconduct of the individual. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid.

To date the Company has not incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. No liability associated with such indemnifications has been recorded to date.