Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation IMS Litigation Matter. IMS’s Complaint Alleging Theft of Trade Secrets. On January 10, 2017, Quintiles IMS Incorporated and IMS Software Services, Ltd. (collectively, “IMS”) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Quintiles IMS Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:17-cv-00177)). In the complaint, IMS alleges that we have used unauthorized access to proprietary IMS data to improve our software and data products, and that our software is designed to steal IMS trade secrets. IMS further alleges that we have intentionally gained unauthorized access to IMS proprietary information to gain an unfair advantage in marketing our products, and that we have made false statements concerning IMS’s conduct and our data security capabilities. IMS asserts claims under both federal and state theft 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 and Counterclaims to IMS’s complaint, a motion to dismiss all of IMS’s claims except for those asserted under the Lanham Act, and a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. IMS’s oppositions to each of those motions were filed on April 3, 2017, and our replies to IMS’s oppositions were filed on April 10, 2017. On June 23, 2017, the Court denied our motion to transfer the case. The court has not yet ruled on our motion to dismiss. 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 IMS’s claims lack merit. Veeva’s Counterclaim Complaint Alleging Violations of Federal and State Antitrust Laws. On March 13, 2017, we filed counterclaims in the action instituted by IMS in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Our counterclaims allege that IMS 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 IMS 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 IMS to our data products. The 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 and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The counterclaims seek injunctive relief, monetary damages exceeding $200 million, and attorneys’ fees. On May 3, 2017, in lieu of filing an Answer, IMS filed a motion to dismiss our counterclaims. Our opposition to IMS’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2017, and IMS’s reply to our opposition was filed on June 19, 2017. Discovery in the IMS litigation is ongoing, and a case management schedule was entered on August 18, 2017, with fact discovery scheduled to close on July 27, 2018. No trial date has yet been set. 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. On February 21, 2017, Medidata and its subsidiary MDSOL Europe Limited (collectively, “Medidata”) filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the same allegations and claims. On March 1, 2017, Medidata voluntarily dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice. On March 3, 2017, we filed a motion to compel the entire matter to private arbitration, which Medidata opposed. On August 16, 2017, the court issued an order denying Veeva’s motion to compel arbitration. On August 24, 2017, Veeva appealed the court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, along with a separate request to stay the district court proceedings pending a decision from the Second Circuit. On August 30, 2017, with the stay request still pending, Veeva filed a motion to dismiss Medidata’s entire complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The initial pretrial conference with the court is scheduled for September 28, 2017, at which time the court will address, among other things, our motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. 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 deny Medidata’s allegations and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against Medidata’s lawsuit. 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. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines and penalties and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the assessment or remediation can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. Value-Added Reseller Agreement We have a value-added reseller agreement with salesforce.com, inc. for our use of the Salesforce1 Platform in combination with our developed technology to deliver certain of our multichannel customer relationship management 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. As of July 31, 2017, we remained obligated to pay fees of at least $319.5 million prior to September 1, 2025 in connection with this agreement.

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

IMS Litigation Matter.

IMS’s Complaint Alleging Theft of Trade Secrets. On January 10, 2017, Quintiles IMS Incorporated and IMS Software Services, Ltd. (collectively, “IMS”) filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Quintiles IMS Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:17-cv-00177)). In the complaint, IMS alleges that we have used unauthorized access to proprietary IMS data to improve our software and data products, and that our software is designed to steal IMS trade secrets. IMS further alleges that we have intentionally gained unauthorized access to IMS proprietary information to gain an unfair advantage in marketing our products, and that we have made false statements concerning IMS’s conduct and our data security capabilities. IMS asserts claims under both federal and state theft 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 and Counterclaims to IMS’s complaint, a motion to dismiss all of IMS’s claims except for those asserted under the Lanham Act, and a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. IMS’s oppositions to each of those motions were filed on April 3, 2017, and our replies to IMS’s oppositions were filed on April 10, 2017. On June 23, 2017, the Court denied our motion to transfer the case. The court has not yet ruled on our motion to dismiss.

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 IMS’s claims lack merit.

Veeva’s Counterclaim Complaint Alleging Violations of Federal and State Antitrust Laws. On March 13, 2017, we filed counterclaims in the action instituted by IMS in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Our counterclaims allege that IMS 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 IMS 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 IMS to our data products. The 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 and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The counterclaims seek injunctive relief, monetary damages exceeding $200 million, and attorneys’ fees. On May 3, 2017, in lieu of filing an Answer, IMS filed a motion to dismiss our counterclaims. Our opposition to IMS’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2017, and IMS’s reply to our opposition was filed on June 19, 2017.

Discovery in the IMS litigation is ongoing, and a case management schedule was entered on August 18, 2017, with fact discovery scheduled to close on July 27, 2018. No trial date has yet been set.

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. On February 21, 2017, Medidata and its subsidiary MDSOL Europe Limited (collectively, “Medidata”) filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the same allegations and claims. On March 1, 2017, Medidata voluntarily dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice. On March 3, 2017, we filed a motion to compel the entire matter to private arbitration, which Medidata opposed.

On August 16, 2017, the court issued an order denying Veeva’s motion to compel arbitration. On August 24, 2017, Veeva appealed the court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, along with a separate request to stay the district court proceedings pending a decision from the Second Circuit. On August 30, 2017, with the stay request still pending, Veeva filed a motion to dismiss Medidata’s entire complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The initial pretrial conference with the court is scheduled for September 28, 2017, at which time the court will address, among other things, our motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

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.

Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines and penalties and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the assessment or remediation can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred.

Value-Added Reseller Agreement

We have a value-added reseller agreement with salesforce.com, inc. for our use of the Salesforce1 Platform in combination with our developed technology to deliver certain of our multichannel customer relationship management 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. As of July 31, 2017, we remained obligated to pay fees of at least $319.5 million prior to September 1, 2025 in connection with this agreement.