IQVIA v. Veeva Systems was a federal lawsuit, in fact a cluster of related lawsuits, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey between IQVIA, a provider of life sciences data and analytics, and Veeva Systems, which sells CRM and master data management (MDM) software and its own reference data. IQVIA sued in January 2017 alleging that Veeva misused IQVIA’s confidential data that it had obtained under third-party access agreements. Veeva counterclaimed that IQVIA used restrictive third-party access policies to keep customers from using Veeva’s data and MDM software.[1][3] Neither side’s claims reached a trial. In August 2025 the companies announced the resolution of all pending disputes and long-term partnerships.[6]
Background
Life sciences companies license reference data about healthcare professionals and sales data from data owners, and use it in CRM and MDM software supplied by other vendors. IQVIA’s complaint described third-party access (TPA) agreements as the instrument it used to let a client’s software vendor access IQVIA data: a TPA agreement “requires the vendor to understand and acknowledge the proprietary nature” of IQVIA’s market research offerings, according to the court’s summary of the complaint.[2] The complaint alleged that IQVIA and Veeva had signed more than 50 such agreements since 2011.[2] The magistrate judge’s 2017 opinion on venue describes the same arrangements as IQVIA granting Veeva access to IQVIA confidential information through “Third Party Limited License Agreements”.[1]
The dispute
IQVIA’s claims. The complaint, filed on 2017-01-10, alleged that Veeva used IQVIA’s confidential and proprietary information improperly, including to improve Veeva’s own data and technology products, and brought six claims: federal and New Jersey trade secret theft, tortious interference with contract, false advertising under the Lanham Act, unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment.[1] One allegation was that in 2016 a client told IQVIA that Veeva had obtained IQVIA data from that client’s CRM application.[2]
Veeva’s counterclaims. Veeva counterclaimed on 2017-03-13, and its claims, later amended to eleven, were mostly antitrust claims.[3][4] Veeva alleged that it and IQVIA entered into a TPA agreement in 2013 to 2014 that gave Veeva’s software access to IQVIA’s sales and reference data, that IQVIA then terminated it, and that Cegedim, a company IQVIA had acquired in 2014, afterwards refused to sign any TPA agreement that did not exclude Veeva’s MDM products. Veeva alleged that this was a strategy to maintain a reference data monopoly and to monopolise MDM by using increasingly restrictive TPA policies.[3] These are Veeva’s allegations as the court recorded them, not findings.
Decision or outcome
Venue and motions to dismiss. On 2017-06-23 the magistrate judge denied Veeva’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.[1] On 2017-10-26 the district judge denied Veeva’s partial motion to dismiss IQVIA’s complaint,[2] and on 2018-10-03 denied IQVIA’s motion to dismiss Veeva’s counterclaims, finding at that stage that Veeva had sufficiently alleged claims including a per se agreement in restraint of trade.[3]
Discovery and two later actions. The litigation became three related actions: the original case, and two later filed cases that were consolidated, IQVIA v. Veeva (No. 19-15517) and Veeva v. IQVIA (No. 19-18558). A special master was appointed in 2018 for discovery and pretrial disputes.[4] In December 2022 the court granted in part Veeva’s appeals from special master orders and directed IQVIA to describe the trade secrets it claimed, and the facts supporting misappropriation, with reasonable particularity.[4]
Bifurcation. On 2024-05-03 the court bifurcated IQVIA’s trade secret claims from Veeva’s antitrust claims for motion practice and trial, reasoning that this would help a potential jury and serve judicial economy. In 2025 it was still deciding summary judgment and expert motions on the trade secret claims.[5]
Settlement. According to Veeva’s Form 8-K, on 2025-08-13 Veeva and IQVIA entered into a settlement agreement resolving all ongoing litigations. Neither party was to pay damages to the other, both agreed to dismiss all pending claims and counterclaims with prejudice, and the parties entered into agreements to facilitate access to each other’s data and software to provide products and services to mutual customers. Veeva also reported a one-time payment of approximately USD 31 million to law firms under previously disclosed outcome-based fee arrangements.[7] The joint press release of 2025-08-18 says the companies established master data and software TPA agreements that allow IQVIA or Veeva data to be used with each other’s software or services in customer instances, including IQVIA data in Veeva Network, Veeva Nitro and Veeva AI.[6] Veeva’s partnership page says that customers have a fast, easy process to get TPAs for projects.[8]
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The case is a rare, well-documented example of how data licences and software licences interact. A customer’s licence to a data set may not extend to every tool that touches it: a data owner may require the customer’s software vendor to sign a TPA agreement, and the terms on which it does so can decide which software the customer can use with the data. Veeva’s licensing as a software and data supplier is described in Veeva Systems licensing and Veeva data products licensing. For other licensing disputes see software licensing litigation.
Lessons learned
- Where a data licence requires a separate third-party access (TPA) agreement before another vendor’s software may use the data, record which tools have a TPA and which do not. IQVIA described TPA agreements as the way it let a client’s software vendor access its data, and more than 50 were alleged to have been signed with Veeva since 2011.[2]
- A vendor’s decision to stop signing TPA agreements can leave a customer unable to use licensed data in its chosen software, so ask what rights you have if the data owner withdraws. Veeva alleged that IQVIA terminated its TPA and refused new ones, and that this inhibited Veeva customers from using Veeva software.[3]
- Allegations that a vendor used licensed data beyond the purpose of the licence were litigated for eight years without a trial; keep records of what each integration does with licensed data. IQVIA alleged that Veeva pulled IQVIA data from a client’s CRM application, and the court later required IQVIA to identify its claimed trade secrets with particularity.[2][4]
- A settlement between two vendors can change what you may do with licensed data, so re-read data and software terms after such a deal. The 2025 settlement came with master data and software TPA agreements that allow IQVIA or Veeva data to be used with each other’s software.[6]