@OrangeDog mentioned in a comment above the concept of self-plagiarism. I have definitely been in a position in a program committee where a paper was rejected because it had large parts completely in common with another paper without giving appropriate context. I think @Saturnus is on the mark with the comment that it doesn't matter if they cover the same material if they are written differently rather than copied, but only up to a point. It also matters what the content is. Literature reviews with common references make perfect sense; I think in the example provided here, you ought to be in the clear.
But I wanted to respond in order to provide a somewhat more general answer.
If someone wrote a paper about project X, and they had an extensive introduction and a section with a couple of pages about use cases, say, and then they wrote a new paper about X, there are a couple of cases:
Is the new paper an extension of the earlier paper, for instance a conference-length paper going beyond an earlier workshop-length paper, or a journal version of a workshop or conference paper? Then it's fine to include earlier content verbatim, with a comment (usually a footnote to the title) that the paper is an extended version of the workshop paper. Aside: this really complicates double-blind reviewing, as people typically omit the self-referential footnote, and reviewers have to guess.
Is the new paper substantially different, even if some content is the same? Small amounts of overlapping content, in my experience, are OK, but if it's not quoted or referenced as coming from the earlier material, it may be a red flag if too much. Think about what automated plagiarism detectors would flag.
Finally, beware of the "least publishable unit". Whether the content is literally identical (and self-plagiarism) or merely semantically identical, you want to be sure enough is different. Again, in the description provided here, they sound different enough. I'm referring to others who may come across this in the future, wondering about reuse across papers....