United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS, STAY, OR TRANSFER AND
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
antitrust action, defendants move to dismiss, stay, or
transfer. Plaintiff opposes. For the following reasons, the
motion to transfer is Granted.
to this action are the following life sciences data and
software products: reference data, sales data, commercial
data warehouse software, customer relationship management
software, and master data management software.
sciences reference data includes the names, contact
information, and affiliations of doctors, hospitals, clinics,
and other medical professionals and organizations. Life
sciences companies purchase and use such information for
sales, marketing, and compliance purposes. Life sciences
sales data tracks the prescriptions written and volumes of
drugs sold in a given geographic region. Life sciences
companies use such data to analyze their product performance
and marketing (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 40, 52, 54).
sciences companies use commercial data warehouse software to
store, organize, and analyze their reference and sales data.
Life sciences companies use customer relationship management
software to collate, automate, and synchronize their
reference and sales data in order to better manage their
customer interactions and enhance sales. Life sciences
companies use master data management software to identify
reference and sales data sources within a customer’s
business, collect the data in a central repository, and
integrate that data in a structure that facilitates
consistent extraction for analysis (id. at
¶¶ 69, 70, 79, 83).
Veeva Systems Inc., headquartered in Pleasanton, is a
pharmaceutical data and software company. Defendant IMS
Software is a software company headquartered in Connecticut.
Defendant IQVIA, headquartered in Connecticut and North
Carolina, is also a pharmaceutical data and software company.
Veeva and IQVIA license life science data and software
products that enable companies to use life sciences reference
and sales data. IQVIA allegedly maintains a 70% share of the
reference data market. IQVIA also requires its customers to
obtain a third-party access agreement before hosting IQVIA
data on third-party software platforms (id. at
¶¶ 3–5, 25, 30).
January 2017, IQVIA asserted claims against Veeva for theft
of trade secrets and misuse of IQVIA’s confidential and
proprietary market research offerings in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. In response,
Veeva asserted federal antitrust violations as counterclaims
against IQVIA in the MDM market based on IQVIA allegedly
delaying or refusing to sign third-party access agreements to
prevent customers from hosting IQVIA data. In March 2017,
Veeva moved to transfer the action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
motion was denied. Litigation on the matter has continued and
discovery is scheduled to close in September 2019. IQVIA
Inc., et al. v. Veeva Systems Inc., No. 2:17-177-CCC-MF
(Dkt. Nos. 1, 11, 12).
mid-2018, Veeva launched a CDW product called Nitro. At the
time, IQVIA already offered its own CDW product called IQVIA
Data Warehouse. In September 2018, one of Veeva’s first
Nitro customers submitted a third party agreement request to
use IQVIA sales data with Nitro. IQVIA initially refused the
request and later blocked NPI numbers and other publicly
available identifiers. This same course of conduct allegedly
occurred with various other customers (Compl. ¶¶
2019, Veeva told IQVIA’s counsel that it planned to
amend its counterclaims to include allegations regarding
Nitro (Mot. Ex. E). On July 11, Veeva told IQVIA and Special
Master former Judge Dennis Cavanaugh that it would not seek
leave to amend its counterclaims (Opp. Ex. E 24:23–25).
On July 17, 2019, IQVIA filed an action in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking
declaratory relief that “IQVIA is not liable to Veeva
based on any decisions not to enter into TPA Agreements
permitting IQVIA’s Market Research Offerings to be
inputted into Veeva Nitro, or any later-introduced Veeva SaaS
products, under any federal antitrust law, including Section
2 of the Sherman Act, or the laws of the states of New Jersey
or California.” IQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems
Inc., No. 2:19-15517-CCC-MF (Dkt. No. 1). The next day,
Veeva filed the instant action in our district. Defendants
now move to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Dkt. Nos. 1, 40). Pursuant to our local civil rule 7-1(b),
this order finds plaintiff’s motion suitable for
submission without oral argument and hereby
vacates the October 10 hearing.
cases involving the same parties and issues have been filed
in two different districts, a federal district court has
discretion to dismiss, stay, or transfer a case to another
district court. Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg.
Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015).
When deciding whether to do so, the court looks to three
threshold factors: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2)
the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of
issues. Id. at 1240. Here, all three required
factors are met. Both ...