Veeva Systems Inc. v. Tact.ai Technologies, Inc. ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE VEEVA SYSTEMS INC. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 23-1032 : TACT.AI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : AKTANA, INC. : MEMORANDUM MURPHY, J. June 5, 2024 This is a patent infringement case between companies that sell software services to the life-sciences industry. We denied a motion to stay discovery, and now we are catching up and addressing a pending motion to dismiss. Aktana asks us to hold all three of Veeva’s asserted patents invalid for lack of patentable subject matter under the Supreme Court’s two-step test in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Alice says that you cannot patent a claim that is directed to an abstract idea and implemented with conventional computer technology. The patents in this case generally relate to computer software responsible for storing, summoning, displaying, and transmitting business information, so it is unsurprising to face an Alice motion early in the case. But this is a court, not a patent office. It is ever the movant’s burden to demonstrate entitlement to relief. In an Alice motion, that means proposing an abstract idea that fits the claim and making a persuasive case that the claim is directed to that abstract idea and not some specific technological improvement. Aktana failed at this task. Aktana also argues that Veeva failed to adequately allege infringement. We deny the motion to dismiss in its entirety. I. Background The parties in this case sell various software products and services designed to facilitate and enhance sales and marketing communications. See DI 14 ¶¶ 9-12. Veeva alleges infringement of three United States Patents: • 9,391,937 (“the 937 patent,” entitled “System and Method for Controlling Electronic Communications”), id. ¶ 16, • 9,055,023 (“the 023 patent,” entitled “System and Method for Controlling Electronic Communications”), id. ¶ 30, and • 11,501,313 (“the 313 patent,” entitled “System and Method for Displaying Data from a Storage”), id. ¶ 44. See also id. ¶ 1.1 Veeva alleges that Aktana is infringing the asserted patents.2 See generally id. The three patents fall into two groups: the 937 and 023 patents (which have specifications that are materially similar for purposes of this motion) and the 313 patent. The parties seem content to use claim 1 of the 023 patent as representative of the pair, and claim 1 of the 313 patent for the other. Starting with the 937 and 023 patents, claim 1 of the 023 patent recites: 1. A machine-implemented method for generating approved electronic messages, the method comprising: establishing a controlled content repository, the controlled content repository being securely and controllably accessed; establishing an access protocol for the controlled content repository, whereby approved content is stored in the controlled content repository according to the access protocol and whereby the access protocol comprises at least one set of alignment rules for determining if a first item of approved content within the controlled content repository can be 1 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the 937 patent on July 12, 2016, the 023 patent on June 9, 2015, and the 313 patent on November 15, 2022. DI 14 ¶¶ 16, 30, 44. 2 It is a little more complicated than that because of the other defendant — Tact.ai. But because the details are largely immaterial here, we will simply refer to Aktana. 2 made available to a first customer via an electronic message; storing the approved content within the controlled content repository, the approved content further being accessible according to the established access protocol; aligning the approved content within the controlled content repository with information from an information management system; providing the first item of approved content within the controlled content repository for selection by a sender after a determination that the first item of approved content within the controlled content repository is authorized to be made available to the first customer in accordance with the at least one set of alignment rules; and providing an approved electronic message generating system which generates an electronic message according to the established access protocol for sending the provided first item of approved content within the controlled content repository to the first customer. 023 patent at 14:39-15:2.3 Generally speaking, the 937 and 023 patents involve problems arising from “modern electronic communications such as email” in fields subject to regulation such as pharmaceutical sales. 023 patent at 1:25-29. According to the patents: sales reps typically are restricted from sending email communications to prescribing doctors because of the enormous risks that can flow from unapproved, uncontrolled messages. For example, a careless rep or other personnel might send an email to a subscribing doctor suggesting off-label uses for a drug. This could end up exposing the company employer (e.g., a pharmaceutical company) to regulatory penalties or other legal liabilities. Id. at 1:31-39. To address this problem, the patents present systems and methods that “allow for control of email content for communications between system users and email recipients (customers).” Id. at 3:17-19. This involves a “controlled content repository” that stores various 3 The patents may be found as attachments to the first amended complaint. See DI 14-1. In the citation format xx:yy, xx refers to column number and yy refers to line number. 3 data like approved content, customer preferences, regulatory requirements, audit trails, metadata, and the like. /d. at 4:14-33. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate exemplary architectures of the invention: 100 m4 0