Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Feb. 28, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (a)Letters of Credit The Company has $27 million in collateralized outstanding letters of credit in support of certain leasing arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business as of February 28, 2022. See the discussion of restricted cash in Note 3. (b) Contingencies Litigation The Company is involved in litigation in the normal course of its business, both as a defendant and as a plaintiff. The Company is subject to a variety of claims (including claims related to patent infringement, purported class actions and other claims in the normal course of business) and may be subject to additional claims either directly or through indemnities against claims that it provides to certain of its partners and customers. In particular, the industry in which the Company competes has many participants that own, or claim to own, intellectual property, including participants that have been issued patents and may have filed patent applications or may obtain additional patents and proprietary rights for technologies similar to those used by the Company in its products. The Company has received, and may receive in the future, assertions and claims from third parties that the Company’s products infringe on their patents or other intellectual property rights. Litigation has been, and will likely continue to be, necessary to determine the scope, enforceability and validity of third-party proprietary rights or to establish the Company’s proprietary rights. Regardless of whether claims against the Company have merit, those claims could be time-consuming to evaluate and defend, result in costly litigation, divert management’s attention and resources and subject the Company to significant liabilities. Management reviews all of the relevant facts for each claim and applies judgment in evaluating the likelihood and, if applicable, the amount of any potential loss. Where a potential loss is considered probable and the amount is reasonably estimable, provisions for loss are made based on management’s assessment of the likely outcome. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum amount in the range. The Company does not provide for claims for which the outcome is not determinable or claims for which the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Any settlements or awards under such claims are provided for when reasonably determinable. As of February 28, 2022, there are no material claims outstanding for which the Company has assessed the potential loss as both probable to result and reasonably estimable; therefore, no accrual has been made. Further, there are claims outstanding for which the Company has assessed the potential loss as reasonably possible to result; however, an estimate of the amount of loss cannot reasonably be made. There are many reasons that the Company cannot make these assessments, including, among others, one or more of the following: the early stages of a proceeding does not require the claimant to specifically identify the patent claims that have allegedly been infringed or the products that are alleged to infringe; damages sought are unspecified, unsupportable, unexplained or uncertain; discovery has not been started or is incomplete; the facts that are in dispute are highly complex; the difficulty of assessing novel claims; the parties have not engaged in any meaningful settlement discussions; the possibility that other parties may share in any ultimate liability; and the often slow pace of litigation. The Company has included the following summaries of certain of its legal proceedings though they do not meet the test for accrual described above. Between October and December 2013, several purported class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada alleging that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial condition and business prospects and that certain of the Company’s financial statements contain material misstatements. The individual lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint, but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), which added the Company’s former Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018. On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional plaintiffs Cho and Ulug. On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho and Ulug against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8, 2020. On January 26, 2021, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The class includes “all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BlackBerry Limited on the NASDAQ during the period from March 28, 2013, through and including September 20, 2013.” The class excludes (a) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between March 28, 2013, and April 10, 2013, and who sold all their the Company common stock before April 11, 2013, and (b) the Defendants, officers and directors of the Company, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. On February 9, 2021, the defendants filed a Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory review of the class certification order with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Rule 23(f) petition on June 23, 2021. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court judgment dismissing Cho and Ulug’s claims on March 11, 2021, and denied Cho and Ulug’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 28, 2021. On April 19, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and both parties filed Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of the oppositions’ marketing and accounting experts. On May 5, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation with the Hon. Layn Phillips (ret.), which did not result in an agreement. On August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of a class notice plan. On September 10, 2021, the Court (i) granted in part and denied in part the parties’ Daubert motions and (ii) granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for approval of the class notice plan. Postcard notice was mailed on October 8, 2021; publication notice was issued starting on October 18, 2021. On January 3, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to seven statements, and otherwise denied Defendants’ motion. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 7, 2022. On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the plaintiffs’ certification motion to an undetermined date after asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens. Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees’ employment with the Company. The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys’ fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019, and discovery is proceeding. Other contingencies As at February 28, 2022, the Company has recognized $17 million (February 28, 2021 - $15 million) in funds from claims filed with the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada relating to its Strategic Innovation Fund (“SIF”) program’s investment in BlackBerry QNX. A portion of this amount may be repayable in the future under certain circumstances if certain terms and conditions are not met by the Company, which is not probable at this time. (c) Concentrations in Certain Areas of the Company’s Business The Company attempts to ensure that most components essential to the Company’s business are generally available from multiple sources; however, certain components are currently obtained from limited sources within a competitive market, which subjects the Company to supply, availability and pricing risks. The Company has also entered into various agreements for the supply of components, and the manufacturing of its products; however, there can be no guarantee that the Company will be able to extend or renew these agreements on similar terms, or at all. Therefore, the Company remains subject to risks of supply shortages. (d) Indemnifications The Company enters into certain agreements that contain indemnification provisions under which the Company could be subject to costs and damages, including in the event of an infringement claim against the Company or an indemnified third party. Such intellectual property infringement indemnification clauses are generally not subject to any dollar limits and remain in effect for the term of the Company’s agreements. To date, the Company has not encountered material costs as a result of such indemnifications. The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its current and former directors and executive officers. Under these agreements, the Company agreed, subject to applicable law, to indemnify its current and former directors and executive officers against all costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred by such individuals in respect of any civil, criminal or administrative action that could arise by reason of their status as directors or officers. The Company maintains liability insurance coverage for the benefit of the Company, and its current and former directors and executive officers. The Company has not encountered material costs as a result of such indemnifications in fiscal 2022. See the Company’s Management Information Circular for its 2021 annual meeting of shareholders for additional information regarding the Company’s indemnification agreements with its current and former directors and executive officers.