In a trio of cases between competitors for alleged theft of trade secrets and antitrust violations, Veeva Systems, Inc. has moved to lift a stay placed on two of three disputes. The litigation began when IQVIA Inc. and IMS Software Services (together, IQVIA) filed a complaint in January 2017 alleging that Veeva engaged in corporate theft and misconduct, including the misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information for its own gain. Veeva reportedly counterclaimed, arguing that IQIVIA violated antitrust laws by refusing to grant it access to data for use in one of its software products.
In her August 2020 order consolidating and staying the two subsequently-filed lawsuits, Magistrate Judge Mary Falk described IQVIA’s business as “providing market research, analytics, technology and services to the life sciences, medical device, and diagnostics and healthcare industries,” while Veeva is “an information and technology services company and competitor of IQVIA.” Judge Falk also called the triad of suits “an all-encompassing battle.”
Reportedly, the first case, (IQVIA I) has been heavily litigated: a special master was designated to oversee discovery, during which millions of documents were produced, 70 depositions taken, and more than two dozen motions decided. IQVIA filed the second case as a declaratory judgment action seeking confirmation that it was not liable for refusing to grant third-party licenses to Veeva. The third suit involves, according to Judge Falk, essentially, the opposite contention, that “IQVIA’s business practices relating to licensing and the Veeva products violate antitrust laws.”
The second and third cases (together, IQVIA II) were stayed last year despite Veeva’s opposition. Now Veeva claims that it is time for IQVIA II to move forward, arguing that progress has stagnated in IQVIA I. Lifting the stay, Veeva contended, would allow discovery to proceed, expediting rather than impeding the ultimate resolution of the parties’ disputes.
In addition, Veeva argued, as it did in its initial opposition to the stay, that IQVIA II raises issues unrelated to IQVIA I. It contends that in IQVIA II, “Veeva seeks redress for IQVIA’s unauthorized access to Veeva’s software applications, which constitutes intentional interference with Veeva’s customer contracts,” yet, “nothing in IQVIA I bears on that key issue.”
If the court elects not to dissolve the stay in its entirety, it should do so with respect to that claim, Veeva asserts. The motion is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 16.
Veeva is represented by Saiber LLC, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., and Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
IQVIA is represented by Critchley, Kinum & Denoia, LLC.
