1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER RESOLVING PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS 

(ECF Nos. 820, 833, 860, 875, 878, 881, AND 914) 

On September 12, 2022, the Court held a hearing on several outstanding pretrial motions. For the reasons explained on the record, the motions are resolved as 

follows. 

 The remaining portion of Versata’s motion in limine to exclude evidence and 

argument about Versata ‘changing’ its trade secret theory (ECF No. 820) that 

the Court previously took under advisement is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as follows. Ford may cross-examine Dr. Sam Malek and 

Seth Krauss concerning whether the trade secrets that they identify at trial are 

inconsistent with the trade secrets that they previously identified. Ford may 

also cross-examine Krauss concerning whether his apportionment analysis 

apportions to trade secrets that differ in any respect from the trade secrets 

Versata identifies at trial. With the exception of this limited crossexamination testimony, Ford shall not introduce evidence or elicit testimony 

at trial that Versata “changed” its trade secret misappropriation theory. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 916, PageID.60218 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

 The remaining portions of Versata’s omnibus motion in limine (ECF No. 833) 

that the Court previously took under advisement are GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 

o Versata’s motion in limine number six to exclude “[a]ny assertion by 

Ford that it cannot infringe Versata’s asserted intellectual property 

merely because Ford has its own patents” is GRANTED. 

o Versata’s motion in limine number seven to exclude “any reference, 

assertion, suggestion, argument, evidence, testimony (including expert 

testimony), or inquiries attempting to elicit testimony about Ford 

patents, including any suggestion that a patent or patent application is 

a defense to infringement” is DENIED. Ford may introduce evidence 

of its patents for the purposes identified in Ford’s response to Versata’s 

omnibus motion in limine. 

o Versata’s motion in limine number eight to exclude from evidence 

“Versata’s current software licenses and agreements with automotive 

companies other than Ford, including any negotiations related to 

current licenses or agreements with automotive companies other than 

Ford” is GRANTED. 

 Ford’s motion to exclude Versata’s new damages expert’s “lost profits” 

contract damages opinions (ECF No. 860) is GRANTED. The breach of 

contract damages opinions in Renee McMahon’s July 2022 reply expert report 

are EXCLUDED from evidence at trial. 

 Versata’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 875) is DENIED. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 916, PageID.60219 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

 Versata’s motion for a Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 878) is 

DENIED. 

 Ford’s motion to conditionally withdraw its consent to Versata’s combination 

trade secret theory (ECF No. 881) is TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

 Versata’s motion to strike Ford’s supplemental brief (ECF No. 914) is 

GRANTED. The Court STRIKES from the record Ford’s supplemental brief 

at docket number 903. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: September 13, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on September 13, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 916, PageID.60220 Filed 09/13/22 Page 3 of 3