XML 39 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.1
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation
IQVIA Litigation Matters
Veeva OpenData and Veeva Network Action.
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 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 denying IQVIA's claims and filed counterclaims. Our counterclaims allege that IQVIA, as the dominant provider of data for life sciences companies, has abused monopoly power 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 increased the difficulty of attempting to switch from IQVIA data 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 October 3, 2018, the court denied IQVIA’s motion to dismiss our antitrust claims.
On February 18, 2020, IQVIA filed a motion for sanctions against Veeva, seeking default judgment and dismissal and, in the alternative, an adverse inference at trial related to discovery disputes. On May 7, 2021, the special master appointed to oversee litigation discovery ruled against IQVIA’s request for default judgment and dismissal and ruled in IQVIA’s favor with respect to certain other matters, including recommending to the trial judge that a permissive adverse inference instruction be issued to the jury with respect to certain documents that were not preserved by Veeva. Should the trial judge accept the recommendation, the jury would be permitted, but not required, to infer that certain evidence not preserved by Veeva would have been unfavorable to Veeva, if the jury first concludes that Veeva controlled the evidence, that the evidence was relevant, and that Veeva should have preserved the evidence. The jury is also likely to be instructed that it may also consider whether the non-preserved evidence was duplicative of other evidence produced by Veeva and whether Veeva’s conduct was reasonable in light of all circumstances. Veeva was also ordered to pay IQVIA’s fees and expenses incurred in connection with portions of its sanctions motion. On June 4, 2021, we appealed the special master’s ruling and IQVIA’s fee award to the federal district court judge.
Fact discovery is largely complete and we expect to complete expert discovery in July 2023. 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 gain or loss, if any, that could result from the OpenData and Network Action, we believe that IQVIA’s claims lack merit and that our counterclaims warrant injunctive relief and monetary damages for Veeva.
Veeva Nitro Action.
On July 17, 2019, IQVIA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 2:19-cv-15517)) (IQVIA Declaratory Action) seeking a declaratory judgment that IQVIA is not liable to Veeva for disallowing use of IQVIA’s data products in Veeva Nitro or any later-introduced Veeva software products. The IQVIA Declaratory Action does not seek any monetary relief.
On July 18, 2019, we filed a lawsuit against IQVIA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc. (No. 3:19-cv-04137)) (Veeva Nitro Action), alleging that IQVIA engaged in anticompetitive conduct as to Veeva Nitro. Our complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims, as well as claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and common law claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. IQVIA filed its answer and affirmative defenses on September 5, 2019.
On September 26, 2019, the Northern District of California transferred the Veeva Nitro Action to the District of New Jersey (Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc. (No. 2:19-cv-18558)).
On March 24, 2020, we amended our complaint in the Veeva Nitro Action to include allegations of IQVIA’s anticompetitive conduct as to additional Veeva software applications, such as Veeva Andi, Veeva Align, and Veeva Vault MedComms; additional examples of IQVIA’s monopolistic behavior against Veeva Nitro; IQVIA’s unlawful access of Veeva’s proprietary software products; and a request for declaratory relief. IQVIA answered the amended complaint on May 22, 2020.
On August 21, 2020, the District of New Jersey consolidated the Veeva Nitro Action and IQVIA Declaratory Action. Fact discovery is largely complete and we expect to complete expert discovery in July 2023.
While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, we believe that our claims warrant injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary damages for Veeva and against IQVIA.
Fee Arrangements Related to the IQVIA Litigation Matters. We have entered into partial contingency fee arrangements with certain law firms representing us in the IQVIA litigations. Pursuant to those arrangements, such law firms are entitled to an agreed portion of any damages we recover from IQVIA or may be entitled to payment of success fees from us based on the achievement of certain outcomes. While it is reasonably possible that we may incur such success fees, we are unable to make an estimate of any such liability and have not accrued any liability related to success fees at this time.
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 amended its complaint twice, asserting the same claims with additional factual allegations, and voluntarily dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice. The trial began on July 11, 2022. On July 15, 2022, after four days of jury trial, the court granted Veeva’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, thereby resolving the case in favor of Veeva. Medidata moved for reconsideration of the decision on July 29, 2022, which was denied by the court on August 18, 2022. Medidata filed an appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on January 3, 2023. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this appeal, 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 appeal lacks merit and we plan to oppose the appeal.
Mednet Litigation Matter
On July 14, 2020, Mednet Solutions, Inc. filed a complaint in Minnesota state court (Mednet Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. (No. 27-CV-20-9374)) against us and a Veeva employee who previously worked for Mednet. The complaint alleged that the employee improperly accessed Mednet’s computer systems after joining Veeva, in violation of his employment agreement to misappropriate Mednet’s confidential and trade secret information for our benefit. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees.
On December 9, 2020, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (No. 20-cv-2502). The complaint has been amended twice to include additional factual allegations, a claim against the employee under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and direct claims against us for misappropriation. The matter is currently in the discovery phase of litigation, with a trial set for early 2024.
While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this litigation, 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 Mednet’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.