Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation IQVIA Litigation Matters Veeva OpenData and Veeva Network Action On January 10, 2017, IQVIA Inc. (formerly Quintiles IMS Incorporated) and IMS Software Services, Ltd. (collectively, “IQVIA”) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:17-cv-00177)) (OpenData and Network Action). In the complaint, IQVIA alleges that we have used unauthorized access to proprietary IQVIA data to improve our software and data products and that our software is designed to steal IQVIA trade secrets. IQVIA further alleges that we have intentionally gained unauthorized access to IQVIA proprietary information to gain an unfair advantage in marketing our products and that we have made false statements concerning IQVIA’s conduct and our data security capabilities. IQVIA asserts claims under both federal and state misappropriation of trade secret laws, federal false advertising law, and common law claims for unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and unfair trade practices. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages. On March 13, 2017, we filed our answer denying IQVIA's claims and filed counterclaims in the OpenData and Network Action. Our counterclaims allege that IQVIA has abused monopoly power as the dominant provider of data products for life sciences companies to exclude Veeva OpenData and Veeva Network from their respective markets. The counterclaims allege that IQVIA has engaged in various tactics to prevent customers from using our applications and has deliberately raised costs and difficulty for customers attempting to switch from IQVIA to our data products. As amended, our counterclaims assert federal and state antitrust claims, as well as claims under California’s Unfair Practices Act and common law claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent misrepresentation. The counterclaims seek injunctive relief, monetary damages exceeding $200 million, and attorneys’ fees. On May 3, 2017, in lieu of filing an answer, IQVIA filed a motion to dismiss our counterclaims. On October 3, 2018, the court denied IQVIA’s motion to dismiss and allowed our antitrust claims to proceed. In addition, on December 3, 2018, we filed an amended answer and counterclaims. IQVIA filed its answer and affirmative defenses on December 21, 2018. On February 18, 2020, IQVIA filed a motion for sanctions against Veeva, seeking default judgment and dismissal and, in the alternative, a negative inference at trial. Veeva responded to the motion and on October 29, 2020, a hearing was held before the Special Master appointed to assist the court with discovery and pretrial disputes. No ruling has been issued. Discovery is currently in process. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, and we are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of gain or loss, if any, that could result from the OpenData and Network Action, we believe that IQVIA’s claims lack merit and that our counterclaims warrant injunctive relief and monetary damages for Veeva. Veeva Nitro Action On July 17, 2019, IQVIA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:19-cv-15517)) (IQVIA Declaratory Action) seeking a declaratory judgment that IQVIA is not liable to Veeva for disallowing use of IQVIA’s data products in Veeva Nitro or any later-introduced Veeva software products. The IQVIA Declaratory Action does not seek any monetary relief. On July 18, 2019, we filed a lawsuit against IQVIA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc. (No. 3:19-cv-04137)) (Veeva Nitro Action), alleging that IQVIA engaged in anticompetitive conduct as to Veeva Nitro. Our complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims, as well as claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and common law claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. IQVIA filed its answer and affirmative defenses on September 5, 2019. On September 26, 2019, the Northern District of California transferred the Veeva Nitro Action to the District of New Jersey. On March 24, 2020, we amended our complaint in the Veeva Nitro Action to include allegations of IQVIA’s anticompetitive conduct as to additional Veeva software applications, such as Veeva Andi, Veeva Align, and Veeva Vault MedComms; additional examples of IQVIA’s monopolistic behavior against Veeva Nitro; IQVIA’s unlawful access of Veeva’s proprietary software products; and a request for declaratory relief. IQVIA answered the amended complaint on May 22, 2020. On August 21, 2020, the District of New Jersey consolidated the Veeva Nitro Action and IQVIA Declaratory Action, and stayed both actions pending conclusion of the OpenData and Network Action. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, we believe that our claims warrant injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary damages for Veeva and against IQVIA. Fee Arrangements Related to the IQVIA Litigation Matters. We have entered into a partial contingency fee arrangements with certain law firms representing us in the IQVIA litigations. Pursuant to those arrangements, such law firms are entitled to an agreed portion of any damages we recover from IQVIA (Contingency Fees) or may be entitled to payment of additional fees from us based on the achievement of certain outcomes (Success Fees). While it is reasonably possible that we may incur such Success Fees, we are unable to make an estimate of any such liability and have not accrued any liability related to Success Fees at this time. Medidata Litigation Matter On January 26, 2017, Medidata Solutions, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. et al. (No. 1:17-cv-00589)) against us and five individual Veeva employees who previously worked for Medidata (Individual Employees). The complaint alleged that we induced and conspired with the Individual Employees to breach their employment agreements, including non-compete and confidentiality provisions, and to misappropriate Medidata’s confidential and trade secret information. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees. Medidata has since amended its complaint twice, asserting the same claims with additional factual allegations, and has voluntarily dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice. Discovery is now completed. On April 24, 2020, Medidata filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claims for trade secret misappropriation as well as several of Veeva’s affirmative defenses. On May 15, 2020, we filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Medidata’s claims. On February 9, 2021, the court issued it ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Veeva as to certain of Medidata's claims and in favor of Medidata as to certain of Veeva's affirmative defenses. A trial date has been set for September 20, 2021. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, and we are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome, we believe that Medidata’s claims lack merit. Other Litigation Matters From time to time, we may be involved in other legal proceedings and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of such legal proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe we are not currently a party to any other legal proceedings, the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial position. Regardless of the outcome, such proceedings can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of resources, and other factors, and there can be no assurances that favorable outcomes will be obtained. Value-Added Reseller Agreement We have a value-added reseller agreement with salesforce.com, inc. for our use of the Salesforce Platform in combination with our developed technology to deliver certain of our multichannel CRM applications, including hosting infrastructure and data center operations provided by salesforce.com. The agreement, as amended, requires that we meet minimum order commitments of $500 million over the term of the agreement, which ends on September 1, 2025, including “true-up” payments if the orders we place with salesforce.com have not equaled or exceeded the following aggregate amounts within the timeframes indicated: (i) $250 million for the period from March 1, 2014 to September 1, 2020 and (ii) the full amount of $500 million by September 1, 2025. We have met our first minimum order requirement commitment of $250 million, and as of January 31, 2021, we remained obligated to pay fees of at least $57 million prior to September 1, 2025 in connection with this agreement.

On January 10, 2017, IQVIA Inc. (formerly Quintiles IMS Incorporated) and IMS Software Services, Ltd. (collectively, “IQVIA”) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:17-cv-00177)) (OpenData and Network Action). In the complaint, IQVIA alleges that we have used unauthorized access to proprietary IQVIA data to improve our software and data products and that our software is designed to steal IQVIA trade secrets. IQVIA further alleges that we have intentionally gained unauthorized access to IQVIA proprietary information to gain an unfair advantage in marketing our products and that we have made false statements concerning IQVIA’s conduct and our data security capabilities. IQVIA asserts claims under both federal and state misappropriation of trade secret laws, federal false advertising law, and common law claims for unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and unfair trade practices. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages.

On March 13, 2017, we filed our answer denying IQVIA's claims and filed counterclaims in the OpenData and Network Action. Our counterclaims allege that IQVIA has abused monopoly power as the dominant provider of data products for life sciences companies to exclude Veeva OpenData and Veeva Network from their respective markets. The counterclaims allege that IQVIA has engaged in various tactics to prevent customers from using our applications and has deliberately raised costs and difficulty for customers attempting to switch from IQVIA to our data products. As amended, our counterclaims assert federal and state antitrust claims, as well as claims under California’s Unfair Practices Act and common law claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent misrepresentation. The counterclaims seek injunctive relief, monetary damages exceeding $200 million, and attorneys’ fees.

On May 3, 2017, in lieu of filing an answer, IQVIA filed a motion to dismiss our counterclaims. On October 3, 2018, the court denied IQVIA’s motion to dismiss and allowed our antitrust claims to proceed. In addition, on December 3, 2018, we filed an amended answer and counterclaims. IQVIA filed its answer and affirmative defenses on December 21, 2018.

On February 18, 2020, IQVIA filed a motion for sanctions against Veeva, seeking default judgment and dismissal and, in the alternative, a negative inference at trial. Veeva responded to the motion and on October 29, 2020, a hearing was held before the Special Master appointed to assist the court with discovery and pretrial disputes. No ruling has been issued.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, and we are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of gain or loss, if any, that could result from the OpenData and Network Action, we believe that IQVIA’s claims lack merit and that our counterclaims warrant injunctive relief and monetary damages for Veeva.

On July 17, 2019, IQVIA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:19-cv-15517)) (IQVIA Declaratory Action) seeking a declaratory judgment that IQVIA is not liable to Veeva for disallowing use of IQVIA’s data products in Veeva Nitro or any later-introduced Veeva software products. The IQVIA Declaratory Action does not seek any monetary relief.

On July 18, 2019, we filed a lawsuit against IQVIA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc. (No. 3:19-cv-04137)) (Veeva Nitro Action), alleging that IQVIA engaged in anticompetitive conduct as to Veeva Nitro. Our complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims, as well as claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and common law claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. IQVIA filed its answer and affirmative defenses on September 5, 2019.

On March 24, 2020, we amended our complaint in the Veeva Nitro Action to include allegations of IQVIA’s anticompetitive conduct as to additional Veeva software applications, such as Veeva Andi, Veeva Align, and Veeva Vault MedComms; additional examples of IQVIA’s monopolistic behavior against Veeva Nitro; IQVIA’s unlawful access of Veeva’s proprietary software products; and a request for declaratory relief. IQVIA answered the amended complaint on May 22, 2020.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, we believe that our claims warrant injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary damages for Veeva and against IQVIA.

Fee Arrangements Related to the IQVIA Litigation Matters. We have entered into a partial contingency fee arrangements with certain law firms representing us in the IQVIA litigations. Pursuant to those arrangements, such

law firms are entitled to an agreed portion of any damages we recover from IQVIA (Contingency Fees) or may be entitled to payment of additional fees from us based on the achievement of certain outcomes (Success Fees). While it is reasonably possible that we may incur such Success Fees, we are unable to make an estimate of any such liability and have not accrued any liability related to Success Fees at this time.

On January 26, 2017, Medidata Solutions, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. et al. (No. 1:17-cv-00589)) against us and five individual Veeva employees who previously worked for Medidata (Individual Employees). The complaint alleged that we induced and conspired with the Individual Employees to breach their employment agreements, including non-compete and confidentiality provisions, and to misappropriate Medidata’s confidential and trade secret information. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees. Medidata has since amended its complaint twice, asserting the same claims with additional factual allegations, and has voluntarily dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice.

Discovery is now completed. On April 24, 2020, Medidata filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claims for trade secret misappropriation as well as several of Veeva’s affirmative defenses. On May 15, 2020, we filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Medidata’s claims. On February 9, 2021, the court issued it ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Veeva as to certain of Medidata's claims and in favor of Medidata as to certain of Veeva's affirmative defenses. A trial date has been set for September 20, 2021. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, and we are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome, we believe that Medidata’s claims lack merit.

From time to time, we may be involved in other legal proceedings and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of such legal proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe we are not currently a party to any other legal proceedings, the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial position. Regardless of the outcome, such proceedings can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of resources, and other factors, and there can be no assurances that favorable outcomes will be obtained.

We have a value-added reseller agreement with salesforce.com, inc. for our use of the Salesforce Platform in combination with our developed technology to deliver certain of our multichannel CRM applications, including hosting infrastructure and data center operations provided by salesforce.com. The agreement, as amended, requires that we meet minimum order commitments of $500 million over the term of the agreement, which ends on September 1, 2025, including “true-up” payments if the orders we place with salesforce.com have not equaled or exceeded the following aggregate amounts within the timeframes indicated: (i) $250 million for the period from March 1, 2014 to September 1, 2020 and (ii) the full amount of $500 million by September 1, 2025. We have met our first minimum order requirement commitment of $250 million, and as of January 31, 2021, we remained obligated to pay fees of at least $57 million prior to September 1, 2025 in connection with this agreement.