Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation IQVIA Litigation Matter. 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)). 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 and counterclaims in the IQVIA 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 our antitrust claims will 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. There are no motions currently pending in the IQVIA case that have the potential to end the case prior to trial. Discovery in the IQVIA litigation is currently in process. Although no trial date has been set, we expect, based on the current case schedule, that trial could take place in late 2020 or early 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 IQVIA’s claims lack merit. 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. Veeva filed a motion to compel the entire matter to arbitration, which the district court denied. We appealed the district court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling. Veeva also filed a motion to dismiss Medidata’s complaint, which the district court also denied. Neither motion, nor the district court orders denying them, are conclusory with respect to the merits of Medidata’s allegations but rather only require that Veeva answer Medidata’s complaint. Veeva filed its answer on December 10, 2018. There are no motions currently pending in the Medidata case that have the potential to end the case prior to trial. Discovery in the Medidata litigation is currently in process and no trial date has been set. 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. 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 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 April 30, 2019, we remained obligated to pay fees of at least $198.0 million prior to September 1, 2025 in connection with this agreement.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

IQVIA Litigation Matter.

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)). 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 and counterclaims in the IQVIA 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 our antitrust claims will 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.

There are no motions currently pending in the IQVIA case that have the potential to end the case prior to trial. Discovery in the IQVIA litigation is currently in process. Although no trial date has been set, we expect, based on the current case schedule, that trial could take place in late 2020 or early 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 IQVIA’s claims lack merit.

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.

Veeva filed a motion to compel the entire matter to arbitration, which the district court denied. We appealed the district court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling. Veeva also filed a motion to dismiss Medidata’s complaint, which the district court also denied. Neither motion, nor the district court orders denying them, are conclusory with respect to the merits of Medidata’s allegations but rather only require that Veeva answer Medidata’s complaint. Veeva filed its answer on December 10, 2018.

There are no motions currently pending in the Medidata case that have the potential to end the case prior to trial. Discovery in the Medidata litigation is currently in process and no trial date has been set.

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 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 April 30, 2019, we remained obligated to pay fees of at least $198.0 million prior to September 1, 2025 in connection with this agreement.