LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	9 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2014
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, we are involved in or subject to legal, administrative and regulatory proceedings, claims, demands and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business, including direct claims brought by or against us with respect to intellectual property, contracts, employment and other matters, as well as claims brought against our customers for whom we have a contractual indemnification obligation. We accrue for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. After we determine the probability of a loss and whether that loss is reasonably estimable, we then analyze whether the litigation, based on that determination, could have a material and adverse effect on our financial statements, taken as a whole and including our statement of cash flows. The accruals or estimates, if any, resulting from the foregoing analysis, are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, we will, as applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to our financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made. InvestPic, LLC v. TIBCO, et al. On November 24, 2010, InvestPic, LLC ("InvestPic") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and fourteen other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:10cv1028-SLR. The complaint alleges that TIBCO Spotfire^® S+^® "and other similar products" infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 (the "’291 patent"). On March 29, 2011, defendant SAS Institute Inc. ("SAS") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief on the basis that all the asserted claims of the ’291 patent are invalid as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. On May 13, 2011, TIBCO, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as SAS’ motion. On September 30, 2011, the Court denied this motion to dismiss. However, the Court declined to address the merits of defendants’ arguments that the claims of the ’291 patent are directed to unpatentable subject matter, in the absence of discovery or claim construction. On May 3, 2012, defendants SAS, Algorithmics (U.S.), Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the reexamination of the ’291 patent. On July 10, 2012, the Court entered an order to stay the litigation and administratively close the case during the pendency of the reexamination of the ’291 patent. InvestPic seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to InvestPic's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. As InvestPic has made no specific demand for damages in this matter other than injunctive relief, we cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO, et al. On December 23, 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("Vasudevan") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and Spotfire Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:11-cv-06638-RS. The complaint alleges that TIBCO directly, indirectly, and willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 B1 based on "Spotfire Analytics and other products." Vasudevan further alleges in its infringement contentions that the accused products "include at least the TIBCO Spotfire Platform (e.g., TIBCO Spotfire Professional, TIBCO Spotfire Server, TIBCO Spotfire Web Player, TIBCO Spotfire Enterprise Player, TIBCO Spotfire for the Apple iPad, TIBCO Spotfire Application Data Services, TIBCO Spotfire Developer, TIBCO Spotfire Metrics, TIBCO Spotfire Network Analytics, TIBCO Spotfire Operations Analytics Bundle, and TIBCO Silver Spotfire) at least versions 4.0 to 2.1, as well as any TIBCO products and services that utilize the TIBCO Spotfire Platform." Vasudevan amended its complaint on March 6, 2012, but continues to accuse the same products of infringement. On May 18, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss Vasudevan's indirect and willful infringement claims. Vasudevan filed a second amended complaint on July 24, 2012, adding a claim for inducement of infringement for alleged acts of indirect infringement occurring after the filing of the original complaint. On September 19, 2012, the Court issued a claim construction order, followed by an order on September 19, 2013, clarifying the prior claim construction. Fact discovery closed on February 15, 2013. Expert discovery closed on June 7, 2013. On October 16, 2013, Vasudevan filed a stipulation of noninfringement based on the court’s claim construction orders. On October 17, 2013, the court granted our motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 for lack of written description and enablement. In light of the stipulation of noninfringement and the order granting summary judgment of invalidity, the court entered judgment in our favor on October 17, 2013. Vasudevan filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 11, 2013, seeking reversal of the final judgment entered on October 17, 2013, including the claim construction orders of September 19, 2012 and September 19, 2013, and the October 17, 2013 order regarding invalidity. Vasudevan filed its opening appeal brief on January 28, 2014. We filed our opposition brief on March 27, 2014. Vasudevan filed its reply brief on April 28, 2014. The court held oral arguments on September 12, 2014. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to Vasudevan's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, we are involved in or subject to legal, administrative and regulatory proceedings, claims, demands and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business, including direct claims brought by or against us with respect to intellectual property, contracts, employment and other matters, as well as claims brought against our customers for whom we have a contractual indemnification obligation. We accrue for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. After we determine the probability of a loss and whether that loss is reasonably estimable, we then analyze whether the litigation, based on that determination, could have a material and adverse effect on our financial statements, taken as a whole and including our statement of cash flows. The accruals or estimates, if any, resulting from the foregoing analysis, are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, we will, as applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss, indicate that the estimate is immaterial with respect to our financial statements as a whole or, if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made.

InvestPic, LLC v. TIBCO, et al.

On November 24, 2010, InvestPic, LLC ("InvestPic") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and fourteen other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:10cv1028-SLR. The complaint alleges that TIBCO Spotfire^® S+^® "and other similar products" infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 (the "’291 patent"). On March 29, 2011, defendant SAS Institute Inc. ("SAS") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief on the basis that all the asserted claims of the ’291 patent are invalid as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. On May 13, 2011, TIBCO, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as SAS’ motion. On September 30, 2011, the Court denied this motion to dismiss. However, the Court declined to address the merits of defendants’ arguments that the claims of the ’291 patent are directed to unpatentable subject matter, in the absence of discovery or claim construction. On May 3, 2012, defendants SAS, Algorithmics (U.S.), Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the reexamination of the ’291 patent. On July 10, 2012, the Court entered an order to stay the litigation and administratively close the case during the pendency of the reexamination of the ’291 patent.

InvestPic seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to InvestPic's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. As InvestPic has made no specific demand for damages in this matter other than injunctive relief, we cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO, et al.

On December 23, 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("Vasudevan") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and Spotfire Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:11-cv-06638-RS. The complaint alleges that TIBCO directly, indirectly, and willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 B1 based on "Spotfire Analytics and other products." Vasudevan further alleges in its infringement contentions that the accused products "include at least the TIBCO Spotfire Platform (e.g., TIBCO Spotfire Professional, TIBCO Spotfire Server, TIBCO Spotfire Web Player, TIBCO Spotfire Enterprise Player, TIBCO Spotfire for the Apple iPad, TIBCO Spotfire Application Data Services, TIBCO Spotfire Developer, TIBCO Spotfire Metrics, TIBCO Spotfire Network Analytics, TIBCO Spotfire Operations Analytics Bundle, and TIBCO Silver Spotfire) at least versions 4.0 to 2.1, as well as any TIBCO products and services that utilize the TIBCO Spotfire Platform." Vasudevan amended its complaint on March 6, 2012, but continues to accuse the same products of infringement. On May 18, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss Vasudevan's indirect and willful infringement claims. Vasudevan filed a second amended complaint on July 24, 2012, adding a claim for inducement of infringement for alleged acts of indirect infringement occurring after the filing of the original complaint. On September 19, 2012, the Court issued a claim construction order, followed by an order on September 19, 2013, clarifying the prior claim construction. Fact discovery closed on February 15, 2013. Expert discovery closed on June 7, 2013.

On October 16, 2013, Vasudevan filed a stipulation of noninfringement based on the court’s claim construction orders. On October 17, 2013, the court granted our motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 for lack of written description and enablement. In light of the stipulation of noninfringement and the order granting summary judgment of invalidity, the court entered judgment in our favor on October 17, 2013.

Vasudevan filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 11, 2013, seeking reversal of the final judgment entered on October 17, 2013, including the claim construction orders of September 19, 2012 and September 19, 2013, and the October 17, 2013 order regarding invalidity. Vasudevan filed its opening appeal brief on January 28, 2014. We filed our opposition brief on March 27, 2014. Vasudevan filed its reply brief on April 28, 2014. The court held oral arguments on September 12, 2014.

We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to Vasudevan's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.