Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases During the nine months ended October 31, 2016, we entered into four office facility lease agreements and an amendment to an existing office facility lease agreement with total additional lease obligations of approximately $43.7 million with lease periods expiring through June 2024. Letters of Credit As of January 31, 2016 and October 31, 2016, we had outstanding letters of credit in the aggregate amount of $7.1 million and $7.7 million respectively, in connection with our facility leases. The letters of credit are collateralized by restricted cash in the same amount and mature at various dates through June 2024. Legal Matters On November 4, 2013, EMC filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets and unlawful interference with business and contractual relationships. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. On November 26, 2013 and November 18, 2014, we counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets, unlawful interference with contractual and business relationships, unfair competition, commercial disparagement, and defamation. Our counterclaim sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. In separate litigation matters, on November 26, 2013 and March 21, 2016, EMC filed complaints against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement. The complaints sought damages and injunctive and equitable relief. On October 18, 2016, we entered into an agreement with Dell Inc. (Dell), as successor-in-interest to EMC to settle all litigation between EMC and us. The terms of the settlement include a payment to Dell, the dismissal of all litigation between the parties, mutual releases, and a license to the disputed patent. Accordingly, we paid Dell a one-time settlement amount of $30.0 million, and all litigation between EMC and us was dismissed prior to October 31, 2016. Settlement discussions started subsequent to the filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended July 31, 2016. We evaluated the settlement as a multiple-element arrangement, which requires us to allocate the one-time payment to the identifiable elements based on their relative fair values. Based on our estimates of fair value, we determined that the sole benefit of the settlement is to avoid further litigation costs with no value attributable to future use or benefit. Accordingly, we recorded the $30.0 million as a legal settlement charge in general and administrative expenses during the three months ended October 31, 2016. On September 1, 2016, a purported securities class action entitled Ramsay v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Mateo County) against us and certain of our officers, directors, investors and underwriters for our initial public offering, asserting claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants, captioned Peter Galanis v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 14, 2016), Curtis Wilson v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 15, 2016), Loren Moe v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 23, 2016), and Mason Delahooke and Mahsa Shirazikia v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed October 5, 2016). On October 27, 2016, the aforementioned actions were consolidated under the caption In re Pure Storage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. We expect that the plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint on December 13, 2016. We believe there is no merit to the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. From time to time, we have become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the normal course of business. We investigate these claims as they arise. Although claims are inherently unpredictable, we currently are not aware of any matters that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, we have not recorded any loss contingency on our consolidated balance sheet as of October 31, 2016. Indemnification Our arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if our products or services infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights. Other guarantees or indemnification arrangements include guarantees of product and service performance and standby letters of credit for lease facilities. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification obligations due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. To date, we have not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and have not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the consolidated financial statements. In addition, we indemnify our officers, directors and certain key employees while they are serving in good faith in their respective capacities. To date, there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions.

Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Leases

During the nine months ended October 31, 2016, we entered into four office facility lease agreements and an amendment to an existing office facility lease agreement with total additional lease obligations of approximately $43.7 million with lease periods expiring through June 2024.

Letters of Credit

As of January 31, 2016 and October 31, 2016, we had outstanding letters of credit in the aggregate amount of $7.1 million and $7.7 million respectively, in connection with our facility leases. The letters of credit are collateralized by restricted cash in the same amount and mature at various dates through June 2024.

Legal Matters

On November 4, 2013, EMC filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets and unlawful interference with business and contractual relationships. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. On November 26, 2013 and November 18, 2014, we counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets, unlawful interference with contractual and business relationships, unfair competition, commercial disparagement, and defamation. Our counterclaim sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. In separate litigation matters, on November 26, 2013 and March 21, 2016, EMC filed complaints against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement. The complaints sought damages and injunctive and equitable relief.

On October 18, 2016, we entered into an agreement with Dell Inc. (Dell), as successor-in-interest to EMC to settle all litigation between EMC and us. The terms of the settlement include a payment to Dell, the dismissal of all litigation between the parties, mutual releases, and a license to the disputed patent. Accordingly, we paid Dell a one-time settlement amount of $30.0 million, and all litigation between EMC and us was dismissed prior to October 31, 2016. Settlement discussions started subsequent to the filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended July 31, 2016. We evaluated the settlement as a multiple-element arrangement, which requires us to allocate the one-time payment to the identifiable elements based on their relative fair values. Based on our estimates of fair value, we determined that the sole benefit of the settlement is to avoid further litigation costs with no value attributable to future use or benefit. Accordingly, we recorded the $30.0 million as a legal settlement charge in general and administrative expenses during the three months ended October 31, 2016.

On September 1, 2016, a purported securities class action entitled Ramsay v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Mateo County) against us and certain of our officers, directors, investors and underwriters for our initial public offering, asserting claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants, captioned Peter Galanis v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 14, 2016), Curtis Wilson v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 15, 2016), Loren Moe v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed September 23, 2016), and Mason Delahooke and Mahsa Shirazikia v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed October 5, 2016). On October 27, 2016, the aforementioned actions were consolidated under the caption In re Pure Storage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. We expect that the plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint on December 13, 2016. We believe there is no merit to the allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

From time to time, we have become involved in claims and other legal matters arising in the normal course of business. We investigate these claims as they arise. Although claims are inherently unpredictable, we currently are not aware of any matters that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, we have not recorded any loss contingency on our consolidated balance sheet as of October 31, 2016.

Indemnification

Our arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if our products or services infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights. Other guarantees or indemnification arrangements include guarantees of product and service performance and standby letters of credit for lease facilities. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification obligations due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. To date, we have not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and have not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the consolidated financial statements. In addition, we indemnify our officers, directors and certain key employees while they are serving in good faith in their respective capacities. To date, there have been no claims under any indemnification provisions.