DCT
1:23-cv-01032
Veeva Systems Inc v. Tactai Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Veeva Systems Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Tact.ai Technologies, Inc. (Delaware) and Aktana, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McCarter & English, LLP; Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
- Case Identification: Veeva Systems Inc. v. Tact.ai Technologies, Inc. and Aktana, Inc., 1:23-cv-01032, D. Del., 07/15/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendants are Delaware corporations and thus reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer engagement platforms for life sciences companies infringe three patents related to controlling electronic communications and visualizing data.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for compliant digital marketing and data analysis tools, particularly for customer relationship management (CRM) in highly regulated industries like pharmaceuticals.
- Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint follows an original complaint filed against Tact.ai. Subsequently, Aktana allegedly acquired substantially all of Tact.ai's assets, including the accused technology. The complaint now includes Aktana as a defendant, asserting direct infringement by the successor products and successor liability for Tact.ai's past infringement, alleging the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance to avoid liability.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-05-06 | Earliest Priority Date for '937 and '023 Patents |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,055,023 Issues |
| 2016-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,391,937 Issues |
| 2017-10-23 | Priority Date for '313 Patent |
| 2022-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. 11,501,313 Issues |
| 2023-09-21 | Veeva files original complaint against Tact.ai |
| 2023-09-29 | Aktana extends credit to Tact.ai via a Secured Lien Note |
| 2023-10-30 | Tact.ai transfers substantially all assets to Aktana |
| 2023-11-01 | Aktana announces acquisition of Tact.ai technology |
| 2023-11-06 | Tact.ai executes a General Assignment for benefit of creditors |
| 2024-05-03 | Veeva files Proof of Claim against the Assignee |
| 2024-07-15 | Veeva files Second Amended Complaint against Tact.ai and Aktana |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,391,937 - "System and Method for Controlling Electronic Communications"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In certain regulated industries, such as pharmaceutical sales, there are significant risks associated with sending uncontrolled electronic communications (e.g., emails) to customers, which could lead to regulatory penalties or other legal liabilities for suggesting unapproved uses of products (’937 Patent, col. 1:28-38).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a machine-implemented method that generates approved electronic messages by integrating a "controlled content repository" with an "information management system" (like a CRM). The system uses an "access protocol" with "alignment rules" to ensure that only authorized content (e.g., pre-approved templates and documents) can be made available to specific customers based on their profile, preferences, and regulatory restrictions, thereby controlling the communication process from start to finish (’937 Patent, col. 1:41-67).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a technical framework for enabling sales and marketing teams in regulated fields to use modern, efficient digital communication tools like email while mitigating the significant compliance risks associated with unapproved messaging (’937 Patent, col. 1:22-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 18 (Compl. ¶26, ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
- A machine-implemented method for generating approved electronic messages.
- Establishing an access protocol for a controlled content repository, where the protocol has alignment rules to determine if content can be made available to a customer.
- Aligning the approved content with information from an information management system.
- Providing the approved content for selection by a sender after determining it is authorized for the customer per the alignment rules.
- Enabling generation of an electronic message to send the approved content to the customer.
- Independent Claim 18 (System) Elements:
- A system with a controlled content repository accessible according to an access protocol with alignment rules.
- An approved electronic message generator, coupled to the repository, that provides approved content for selection after authorization and enables generation of an electronic message for sending.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶25).
U.S. Patent No. 9,055,023 - "System and Method for Controlling Electronic Communications"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problem as its continuation ('937 Patent): the regulatory and legal risks that have limited the use of electronic communications, like email, in fields such as the pharmaceutical sales industry (’023 Patent, col. 1:22-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system to generate approved emails by establishing a securely accessed "controlled content repository." The system uses an "access protocol" with "alignment rules" to determine if content is appropriate for a specific customer. It then aligns this approved content with information from a CRM, stores the content, and provides a generating system to create and send compliant electronic messages (’023 Patent, col. 1:41-65).
- Technical Importance: This technology offered a foundational solution for life sciences companies to adopt digital communication strategies by providing a system to enforce compliance rules automatically, thereby reducing the risk of human error in marketing communications (’023 Patent, col. 1:22-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 18 (Compl. ¶40, ¶45).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
- A machine-implemented method for generating approved emails.
- Establishing a controlled content repository that is securely and controllably accessed.
- Establishing an access protocol for the repository with alignment rules.
- Storing the approved content in the repository, accessible according to the protocol.
- Aligning the approved content with information from an information management system.
- Providing the approved content for selection by a sender after authorization.
- Providing an approved email generating system to create a message according to the protocol.
- Independent Claim 18 (System) Elements:
- An approved electronic message generator coupled to a controlled content repository and an application over a network.
- The system provides an item of approved content for selection after a determination that it is authorized for a specific customer per alignment rules.
- The system generates an electronic message according to the access protocol.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶39).
U.S. Patent No. 11,501,313 - "System and Method for Displaying Data From a Storage"
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the problem that conventional user interfaces for CRM systems are often inconvenient for users to understand and use data effectively (’313 Patent, col. 1:9-18). The solution is a system for generating customizable data visualization reports. It uses a markup language (like HTML) to define the layout and a second programming language (like JavaScript) to query a data storage system via an API, rendering a custom, user-friendly report separate from the raw data entry interface (’313 Patent, col. 1:22-52).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses the "Tact Presenter for MS Teams and Tact Dynamic Insights" products, now part of Aktana's portfolio, which allegedly provide "bite-sized insights from multiple sources" through a data visualization interface (Compl. ¶53, ¶55). The screenshot of the "TACT DYNAMIC INSIGHTS" dashboard depicts a user interface with customized data visualizations, such as charts and key metrics (Compl. p. 25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "Tact Customer Engagement Platform," which includes "Tact Field Email," "Tact Presenter for MS Teams," and "Tact Dynamic Insights" (collectively, "Accused Tact.ai Products and Services") (Compl. ¶13). Following an acquisition, the complaint also names the successor products, including "Aktana Copilot" and Aktana's "Execution Suite" and "Strategy Suite" (collectively, "Accused Aktana Products and Services") (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are marketed to life sciences companies as a tool to "[e]ngage customers with personalized emails using approved templates" in a compliant manner (Compl. ¶27). The platform is described as integrating with third-party systems like "Veeva PromoMats" and "Salesforce CRM" to align approved content with customer data (Compl. ¶12, ¶29). Functionality allegedly includes "AI-powered Compliance" to enforce business rules, providing users with lists of approved templates, and generating customizable emails (Compl. ¶29, ¶30). The "Dynamic Insights" feature is alleged to enable the display of data from a storage system in a custom visualization interface (Compl. ¶55). The complaint includes a screenshot of a mobile device interface for composing a new message, showing a user selecting from a list of approved email templates (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,391,937 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a machine-implemented method for generating approved electronic messages | The Tact platform enables a method for generating personalized emails using approved templates. | ¶27 | col. 1:41-43 |
| establishing an access protocol for a controlled content repository...whereby the access protocol comprises at least one set of alignment rules for determining if a first item of approved content...can be made available to a first customer | The platform provides "Quick Access to approved communication templates" from a content repository (e.g., Digital Asset Management System) and uses "AI-powered Compliance" as alignment rules. | ¶28, ¶29 | col. 13:40-52 |
| aligning the approved content within the controlled content repository with information from an information management system | The platform integrates with CRM systems to process and display CRM data, thereby aligning approved content with customer information. | ¶29 | col. 13:53-57 |
| providing the first item of approved content...for selection by a sender after a determination that the first item...is authorized to be made available to the first customer | The platform provides a list of approved communication templates for a user to select after determining the content is authorized for the customer. | ¶30 | col. 14:1-7 |
| enabling generation of an electronic message for sending the provided first item of approved content...to the first customer | The platform provides an interface for customizing and generating an electronic communication for sending to a customer. | ¶30 | col. 14:8-12 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,055,023 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a machine-implemented method for generating approved emails | The Tact platform provides a method for generating approved, personalized emails. | ¶41 | col. 1:41-43 |
| establishing a controlled content repository, the controlled content repository being securely and controllably accessed | The platform provides "Quick Access to approved communication templates," which are stored in and accessed from a content repository like a Digital Asset Management System. | ¶42 | col. 1:44-46 |
| establishing an access protocol for the controlled content repository, whereby approved content is stored...according to the access protocol | The platform's ability to "Drive Email Compliance" and use "AI-powered Compliance" allegedly constitutes an access protocol with alignment rules. | ¶42 | col. 1:47-54 |
| aligning the approved content...with information from an information management system | The platform's integration with CRM systems is alleged to perform this alignment. | ¶43 | col. 1:58-61 |
| providing an approved email generating system which generates an electronic message according to the established access protocol for sending the provided first item of approved content | The platform provides users with approved templates and enables the generation of an electronic communication that can be customized for sending to a customer. | ¶44 | col. 1:62-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory relies on the accused platform's integration with third-party systems like "Veeva PromoMats" and "Salesforce CRM" (Compl. ¶12). A potential point of contention is whether accessing content from an external repository satisfies the claim requirement of "establishing" and "storing" content within a "controlled content repository" as taught by the patents. The court may need to determine if "controlled content repository" requires the content to be hosted and managed within the infringing system itself or if controlled access to an external system is sufficient.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the platform's "AI-powered Compliance" feature functions as the claimed "alignment rules" (Compl. ¶29, ¶42). A factual question for the court will be whether this AI functionality performs the specific step of "determining if a first item of approved content...can be made available to a first customer" based on rules, as claimed, or if it performs a different compliance function. The evidence provided for how this "AI-powered Compliance" technically operates is not detailed in the complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "alignment rules" (from '937 Claim 1; '023 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's core function of ensuring compliance. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused platform's "AI-powered Compliance" and other logic for filtering content (Compl. ¶29, ¶42) fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a general-purpose business logic engine meets the specific requirements of the patent's compliance-focused architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the rules as determining "specific pieces of content that are available for use" (e.g., ’937 Patent, col. 5:26-29), which could be argued to encompass any logic that filters content for a user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly tie the rules to specific customer attributes like "regulatory limitations, customer preferences and demographic information" (’937 Patent, col. 3:22-25) and a customer's "opt-in" or "opt-out" status (e.g., ’937 Patent, col. 9:14-17), suggesting the rules must be based on this type of CRM-derived compliance data, not just any business logic.
The Term: "controlled content repository" (from '937 Claim 1; '023 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The defendants' products are alleged to integrate with external systems like "Veeva PromoMats" (Compl. ¶12). The definition of "controlled content repository" is therefore critical to determining whether the accused system, which acts as an intermediary, contains this claimed element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the system is designed to have a "process for developing approved content that is sharable across multiple users" and may integrate "multiple content repositories in an enterprise into a single system" (’937 Patent, col. 4:15-17; col. 6:59-62), which may support an interpretation where the "repository" is a logical construct that includes access to external sources.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims use the verbs "establishing" and "storing" in relation to the repository, and the specification describes it as a place where an audit trail and "exact content of communications" are stored (’937 Patent, col. 4:28-33). This language may support a narrower view that the repository must be a distinct component of the claimed system where content is actively managed and stored, not just accessed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants provide the accused platforms with knowledge and intent that their customers will use them to directly infringe the patents-in-suit. This is based on allegations that Defendants market the infringing functionality and provide instructions, services, and support that encourage the infringing use (Compl. ¶11, ¶25, ¶39, ¶53).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on Veeva's public patent-marking website, which identifies the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶35, ¶49, ¶58). It alleges continued infringement after the filing of the original complaint on September 21, 2023, constitutes post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶35, ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of successor liability: can Veeva prove that Aktana's acquisition of Tact.ai's assets constituted a fraudulent transfer or a de facto merger, making Aktana liable for Tact.ai's alleged past infringement, especially given the timing of the transaction shortly after the original lawsuit was filed?
- A central technical question will be one of definitional scope: does the accused platform's use of "AI-powered Compliance" and its integration with external content sources like Veeva PromoMats meet the patent's specific requirements for "alignment rules" and a "controlled content repository," or is there a fundamental mismatch in system architecture?
- For the '313 patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused "Dynamic Insights" dashboard, which presents custom reports, operate according to the specific two-part structure claimed in the patent—a markup language for layout and a separate programming language making API calls to a data store—or does it achieve a similar result through a non-infringing technical implementation?