Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 5: Commitments and Contingencies Leases and purchase commitments The Company leases its facilities under long-term operating leases, which expire at various dates through February 2023. As of October 31, 2017, total future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases were $4.5 million. Rent expense was $1.2 million and $1.6 million for the nine months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of October 31, 2017, non-cancelable purchase commitments were $1.9 million. Legal proceedings In addition to the litigation matters described below, from time to time, the Company may be involved in a variety of other claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to contractual disputes, intellectual property rights, employment matters, regulatory compliance matters, and other litigation matters relating to various claims that arise in the normal course of business. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees, the Company may receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing specific litigation and regulatory matters using reasonably available information. The Company develops its views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and outcomes, assuming various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred. Other than the Oregon Tax litigation, Deep Green Wireless Litigation, Securities Litigation and Berks County Litigation, the Company is currently not a party to any material litigation or other proceedings, and as of October 31, 2017, the Company did not have any material accrued liabilities recorded for loss contingencies in its condensed consolidated financial statements. Oregon Tax 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 the Company is 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 Complaint, and during April 2017, the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2017. 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. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of material losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Oregon Tax Litigation is not estimable. 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 Patent”, and such litigation, 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. On June 8, 2017, the Company filed a motion with the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent. Based upon the Company’s investigation, the Company does not believe that its products infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the aforementioned patent, and the Company plans to continue vigorously defending against the plaintiff’s claim. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Deep Green Wireless Litigation is not estimable. 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 the Company, 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 SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company 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, the Company filed its answer to the complaint, on August 26, 2016 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and on January 5, 2017, the Court issued an order in response to such motion, granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims pursuant to Sections12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, with leave to amend, and denying the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act. The parties participated in a confidential mediation session on August 4, 2017 that did not result in a resolution of the Securities Litigation. On August 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the consolidated complaint, which, among other things, added back in the original claims based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act (The “Section 12 and 15 Claims”). On November 29, 2017, the court dismissed the Section 12 and 15 Claims with prejudice, but denied the Company’s motions to (a) dismiss the amended consolidated case on grounds that state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear federal securities class action claims, and (b) to stay the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan v. Beaver Cnty. Emp. Ret.‘ Fund, which takes up the same issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and the Company is vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation and will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities Litigation is not estimable. 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 the Company 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. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Berks County Litigation is not estimable. 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.

Note 5: Commitments and Contingencies

Leases and purchase commitments

The Company leases its facilities under long-term operating leases, which expire at various dates through February 2023. As of October 31, 2017, total future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases were $4.5 million.

Rent expense was $1.2 million and $1.6 million for the nine months ended October 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

As of October 31, 2017, non-cancelable purchase commitments were $1.9 million.

Legal proceedings

In addition to the litigation matters described below, from time to time, the Company may be involved in a variety of other claims, lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings relating to contractual disputes, intellectual property rights, employment matters, regulatory compliance matters, and other litigation matters relating to various claims that arise in the normal course of business. Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees, the Company may receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained.

The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company assesses its potential liability by analyzing specific litigation and regulatory matters using reasonably available information. The Company develops its views on estimated losses in consultation with inside and outside counsel, which involves a subjective analysis of potential results and outcomes, assuming various combinations of appropriate litigation and settlement strategies. Legal fees are expensed in the period in which they are incurred.

Other than the Oregon Tax litigation, Deep Green Wireless Litigation, Securities Litigation and Berks County Litigation, the Company is currently not a party to any material litigation or other proceedings, and as of October 31, 2017, the Company did not have any material accrued liabilities recorded for loss contingencies in its condensed consolidated financial statements.

Oregon Tax 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 the Company is 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 Complaint, and during April 2017, the Company voluntarily participated in an informal discovery process by providing certain information and documents to the DOR. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2017. 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. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of material losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Oregon Tax Litigation is not estimable.

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 Patent”, and such litigation, 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. On June 8, 2017, the Company filed a motion with the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review of the Deep Green Wireless Patent. Based upon the Company’s investigation, the Company does not believe that its products infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the aforementioned patent, and the Company plans to continue vigorously defending against the plaintiff’s claim. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Deep Green Wireless Litigation is not estimable.

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 the Company, 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 SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company 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, the Company filed its answer to the complaint, on August 26, 2016 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and on January 5, 2017, the Court issued an order in response to such motion, granting the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims pursuant to Sections12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, with leave to amend, and denying the Company’s motion to dismiss the claims pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act. The parties participated in a confidential mediation session on August 4, 2017 that did not result in a resolution of the Securities Litigation. On August 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the consolidated complaint, which, among other things, added back in the original claims based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act (The “Section 12 and 15 Claims”). On November 29, 2017, the court dismissed the Section 12 and 15 Claims with prejudice, but denied the Company’s motions to (a) dismiss the amended consolidated case on grounds that state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear federal securities class action claims, and (b) to stay the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan v. Beaver Cnty. Emp. Ret.‘ Fund, which takes up the same issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The Company believes the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and the Company is vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation and will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities Litigation is not estimable.

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 the Company 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. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Berks County Litigation is not estimable.

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.