1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING AND 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF#503) 

 In this consolidated action, there are three sets of claims currently before the 

Court: (1) Ford’s claims in its Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 15-10628; 

(2) Versata’s Counterclaims in Case No. 15-10628; and (3) Ford’s claims in its 

Complaint in Case No. 15-11624.1

 On February 1, 2018, and February 13, 2018, 

Plaintiff Ford Motor Company and Defendants Versata Software, Inc., Versata 

Development Group, Inc., and Trilogy, Inc. (collectively, Versata”) filed crossmotions for summary judgment with respect to many of these claims. (See Ford 

Mot., ECF ## 354, 358; Versata Mot., ECF ## 379, 380.) Ford subsequently filed 

an unopposed motion for leave to supplement its summary judgment motion. (See 

                                                            

1

 On July 14, 2015, the Court entered a stipulated order consolidating this action 

(Case No. 15-10628) with the action Ford filed in Case No. 15-11624. (See ECF 

#28.) All subsequent filings have been made this action. 
2 

ECF #511.) In addition, Ford has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

June 5, 2018, order granting Versata’s motion to modify the case caption (see ECF 

#503), and Versata has filed a request for leave to file supplemental expert reports 

to address the deficiencies that the Court identified in its July 9, 2018, order 

resolving the parties’ Daubert motions (see ECF #514). 

 The Court held a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment 

on July 24, 2018. (See ECF #497.) The Court also addressed the other pending 

motions identified above. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 24, 2018, 

hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 Ford’s unopposed motion to supplement its summary judgment motion (ECF 

#511) is GRANTED; 

 Ford’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 5, 2018, order granting 

Versata’s motion to modify the case caption (ECF #503) is DENIED; 

 Versata’s request for leave to file supplemental expert reports (ECF #514) is 

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT; 

 With respect to Ford’s motion for summary judgment (ECF ## 354, 358) – 

o Ford’s request for summary judgment on Count #6 of its Second 

Amended Complaint (in Case No. 15-10628) and Counts #9 and #13 of 

Versata’s Counterclaims (in Case No. 15-10628) is DENIED IN 

PART and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART. To the 
3 

extent that Ford seeks summary judgment on the ground that it is 

entitled to summary judgment because Versata did not take reasonable 

measures to protect its trade secrets, the motion is DENIED. To the 

extent that Ford seeks summary judgment on the ground that it owns 

the relevant trade secrets, the motion is TAKEN UNDER 

ADVISEMENT; 

o Ford’s request for summary judgment on Count #4 of its Second 

Amended Complaint (in Case No. 15-10628) and Counts #9 and #13 of 

Versata’s Counterclaims (in Case No. 15-10628) is TAKEN UNDER 

ADVISEMENT; 

o Ford’s request for summary judgment on Count #1 of its Complaint (in 

Case No. 15-11264) and Count #14 of Versata’s Counterclaims (in 

Case No. 15-10628) is DENIED IN PART and TAKEN UNDER 

ADVISEMENT IN PART. To the extent that Ford seeks summary 

judgment on the ground that none of the Versata entities that are named 

parties in this action own the relevant copyrights, the motion is 

DENIED. To the extent that Ford seeks summary judgment on the 

ground that it did not use the relevant copyrights after Versata 

terminated Ford’s software license, the motion is DENIED. To the 

extent that Ford seeks summary judgment on the ground that it did not 
4 

use the relevant copyrights outside the scope of its software license, the 

motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. In addition, the Court 

hereby GRANTS Ford leave to file a second summary judgment 

motion. In that motion, Ford may argue that (1) it is entitled to 

summary judgment on the copyright claims based on the Court’s July 

9, 2018, order resolving the parties’ Daubert motions, and/or (2) it is 

entitled to summary judgment on the copyright claims based on the 

“effective-registration doctrine.” See Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury 

Ventures, L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (11th Cir. 2008); and 

 Versata’s motion for summary judgment on Counts #4, #5, and #8 of Ford’s 

Second Amended Complaint (in Case No. 15-10628) and Counts #11 and #14 

of its Counterclaims (in Case No. 15-10628) (ECF ## 379, 380) is TAKEN 

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: July 25, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

                                                            

2

 At the hearing, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a resolution 

with respect to the portions of Versata’s summary judgment motion addressing 

Counts #7 and #17 of Ford’s Second Amended Complaint (in case No. 15-10628). 

The parties shall file a stipulated order memorializing that agreed-upon resolution 

with the Court by no later than August 3, 2018.
5 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on July 25, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764