Background: The Dispute Between Epic and Veeva
Epic Systems, the dominant EHR vendor headquartered in Verona, Wisconsin, scored a legal victory on April 29 when a Dane County judge dismissed a noncompete challenge brought by life sciences technology firm Veeva Systems.
Veeva filed the lawsuit in January 2026. The company argued that Epic’s employment contracts unfairly restrict its ability to hire former Epic workers at its Madison, Wisconsin office. Because Epic and Veeva operate in the same geographic region, the competition for talent between the two companies has been intense.
Furthermore, Veeva challenged the legality of clauses requiring former employees to avoid working for competitors for a set period. Additionally, the suit targeted a stock forfeiture provision, which penalizes departing employees financially if they join a rival firm.
Understanding Epic’s Noncompete Agreements
Epic’s noncompete clauses have drawn scrutiny for years. The agreements typically contain two key restrictions. First, former employees must wait a defined period before joining a competitor. Second, employees who leave for a rival company must forfeit unvested stock.
Critics argue these provisions suppress wages and discourage workers from moving to competitors. However, Epic maintains that such agreements protect its proprietary systems and trade secrets. In recent years, the company did trim its noncompete list, narrowing the category of roles subject to these restrictions.
What the Court Decided
Judge David Conway of Dane County Circuit Court dismissed the case with prejudice on April 29. Dismissal with prejudice means Veeva cannot refile the same claims in the same court.
Notably, the ruling did not assess whether Epic’s noncompete clauses are enforceable. Instead, the court focused entirely on the question of who can legally bring such a challenge.
Why the Judge Dismissed the Case
Judge Conway ruled that Veeva, as a potential employer not bound by Epic’s employment contracts, lacks standing to sue over those agreements. In other words, only a party directly subject to the noncompete — meaning a current or former Epic employee — can challenge its terms.
This reasoning presents a significant procedural barrier. Therefore, even if Veeva believes the clauses harm its recruiting, the court determined it is not the right plaintiff to raise that argument. The decision reflects a strict interpretation of standing doctrine in Wisconsin courts.
Veeva Systems Plans to Appeal
Veeva wasted no time in pushing back. Josh Faddis, general counsel at Veeva Systems, posted a response on LinkedIn on April 30. He called the ruling a flawed interpretation of the law.
“It entrenches a long-standing scheme to control workers that is stifling innovation and hurting the local economy,” Faddis wrote. He confirmed that Veeva intends to appeal the decision.
Meanwhile, Epic has not yet issued a public statement on the outcome. Becker’s Hospital Review noted it reached out to Epic for comment.
What Veeva’s Appeal Could Mean
An appeal could keep this dispute in the spotlight for months. Moreover, if an appellate court expands the definition of standing, it could open the door for third-party employers to challenge noncompetes on behalf of the broader job market. That outcome would have wide implications beyond Wisconsin.
Why This Case Matters for Healthcare Tech
This legal battle reflects a larger tension playing out across the health technology sector. Noncompete agreements are common among major EHR vendors and health IT companies. Consequently, workers who gain specialized skills at one firm often find it difficult to move to competitors without financial or legal risk.
Advocates for worker mobility argue that such restrictions slow innovation. They contend that when skilled engineers and developers cannot move freely, the pace of progress in healthcare technology suffers. By contrast, companies like Epic argue that protecting investments in workforce training is a legitimate business interest.
Wisconsin’s approach to noncompete law also adds a layer of complexity. The state does enforce such agreements, unlike states such as California where noncompetes are largely unenforceable. As a result, the outcome of any appeal will carry meaningful weight for employers and workers across the region.
Ultimately, the Veeva-Epic case highlights how legal strategy, workforce policy, and competitive dynamics intersect in the fast-moving health IT industry. Regardless of how the appeal proceeds, the debate over Epic’s employment clauses is far from over.
