UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Ford Motor Company, 

 Plaintiff/ 

 Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy 

Software, Inc., Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc., 

 Defendants/ 

 Counter-Plaintiffs.

Case No. 15-10628-MFL-EAS 

(consolidated with Case No. 15-cv-11624) 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ 

TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIMS 

AGAINST FORD’S PDO “R2” APPLICATIONS 

– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION –

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49162 Page 1 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

i 

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED 

1. Should the Court grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on Versata’s trade 

secret misappropriation claims against Ford’s two PDO “R2” applications 

(“Change Management” and “Mix-Rate”) where (i) Versata does not attempt 

to prove that those applications include the alleged trade secret functionality, 

and (ii) Versata seeks no incremental damages based on those applications? 

Ford answers: Yes.

 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49163 Page 2 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................ i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv

MOTION .................................................................................................................... 1

BRIEF IN SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 2

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2

A. The Original Pleadings Did Not Address Ford’s “Change 

Management” or “Mix-Rate” Applications Because Those 

Applications Did Not Replace any Versata Software ........................... 2

1. Ford’s Originally-Accused PDO “R1” Software Performs 

“Product Definition” and—Unlike the PDO “R2” 

Applications—Replaced Versata’s ACM and MCA 

Software ..................................................................................... 3

2. Ford’s R2 “Mix-Rate” Application ............................................ 5

3. Ford’s R2 “Change Management” Application ......................... 6

B. The Special Master Previously Determined that Versata’s Trade 

Secret Claims Against Ford’s “R2” Applications Were 

Conclusory and Unclear ........................................................................ 6

C. Versata Offered to Drop, and Does Not Seek Damages for, 

Ford’s R2 Applications ......................................................................... 8

II. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY .................................................................... 9

A. Summary Judgment Standard ................................................................ 9

III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 10

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49164 Page 3 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

iii 

A. Ford is Entitled to Summary Judgment Because Versata Does 

Not Perform a Trade Secret Analysis In Connection With 

Ford’s Change Management and Mix-Rate Applications ................... 10

1. Versata Does Not Attempt to Show that Ford’s Mix-Rate 

Application Practices the Alleged “Buildability” Trade 

Secret Combination .................................................................. 13

2. Versata Does Not Attempt to Show that Ford’s Change 

Management Application Practices the Alleged 

“Workspaces” Trade Secret Combination ............................... 15

IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 17

 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49165 Page 4 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

iv 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

American Airlines, Inc. v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Inc., 

 114 F.3d 108 (8th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................... 12 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

 477 U.S. 242 (1986)....................................................................................... 10 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

 477 U.S. 317 (1986).................................................................... 10, 13, 15, 16 

R C. Olmstead, Inc. v. C.U. Interface, LLC, 

 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................... 13 

SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Servs., Inc., 

 712 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 9, 10 

Stratienko v. Cordis Corp., 

 429 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 12 

Statutes

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 .......................................................................................................... 9 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49166 Page 5 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

1 

MOTION 

This Court should grant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford’s”) motion for 

summary judgment on Defendants’ (collectively “Versata’s”) trade secret 

misappropriation claims against Ford’s “Change Management” and “Mix-Rate” 

software. Versata has not even attempted to demonstrate that these applications 

actually practice the asserted trade secrets. Thus, there is no genuine issue of 

material fact on Versata’s trade secret claims. Versata also fails to assert any 

damages arising from its trade secret claims against these two applications. Thus, 

as set forth in greater detail in the accompanying Brief in Support, Ford is entitled 

to summary judgment on Versata’s trade secret claims against these applications. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49167 Page 6 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

2 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. The Original Pleadings Did Not Address Ford’s “Change 

Management” or “Mix-Rate” Applications Because Those 

Applications Did Not Replace any Versata Software 

Ford’s “Change Management” and “Mix-Rate” applications are software 

programs located downstream of Ford’s originally-accused PDO “R1” product 

definition software. (See Dkt. #308-3, Beardslee Dep. Tr. at 115:2-116:14.) These 

“R2” applications merely receive data from the originally-accused PDO product 

definition software. (See Ex. F, 2018 Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #333-41

] at ¶¶4, 

6.) They do not incorporate, replace, or otherwise supplant the product definition 

functionality that Versata’s ACM and MCA software previously provided, or that 

Ford’s replacement R1 product definition software provides today. (See Ex. G, 2017 

Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #301-52

] at ¶¶3-4, 7-8; see also Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 

Dep. Tr. at 667:15-23, 680:19-25, 689:14-21.) 

Despite these facts, Versata now asserts that Ford’s R2 Change Management 

and Mix-Rate applications misappropriate Versata’s alleged trade secrets. As 

described below, Versata cannot maintain such an assertion because it simply has 

 1

 Mr. Beardslee’s January 2018 declaration was previously submitted as Dkt. 

#333-4 and, for ease of reference, has been re-attached here as Exhibit F. 

2

 Mr. Beardslee’s June 2017 declaration was previously submitted as Dkt. 

#301-5 and, for ease of reference, has been reattached here as Exhibit G. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49168 Page 7 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

3 

not shown that the accused R2 applications themselves practice the alleged trade 

secrets. Versata’s failure of proof leaves no genuine issue of fact and summary 

judgment in Ford’s favor is appropriate. 

1. Ford’s Originally-Accused PDO “R1” Software 

Performs “Product Definition” and—Unlike the PDO 

“R2” Applications—Replaced Versata’s ACM and 

MCA Software 

Ford’s PDO “R1” product definition software, which replaced the

ACM/MCA software previously licensed from Versata, is the source of product 

definition data throughout Ford’s organization. (Ex. F, 2018 Beardslee Declaration 

[Dkt. #333-4] at ¶3.) In addition to receiving, validating and storing user-input 

“rules” defining feature options, Ford’s PDO R1 software—like the ACM software 

that it replaced—outputs data relating to Ford’s product definition rules (defining 

buildable vehicle feature combinations) to other Ford systems and software 

applications. (See id.; see also Dkt. #308-3, Beardslee Dep. Tr. at 115:2-16.) Many 

of Ford’s manufacturing and sales systems, for example, regularly receive data 

output from PDO R1. Systems and software that receive Ford’s product definition 

data exported from PDO R1 are generally referred to as “downstream” applications. 

A suite of software applications known collectively as PDO “R2” is among 

the dozens of downstream applications within Ford that receive product definition 

data from PDO R1. Ford’s R2 suite includes four separate software applications, 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49169 Page 8 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

4 

which provide a variety of functionality: (1) Mix-Rate3

; (2) Change Management; 

(3) Pricing Companion Tool4

; and (4) a security application referred to as the 

Enterprise Authorization Service. (See, e.g., Ex. G, 2017 Beardslee Declaration 

[Dkt. #301-5] at ¶5; see also Ex. B, Malek R2 Report at ¶21 and Ex. A, Malek 

3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 658:8-18.) As described in greater detail below, however 

Versata’s trade secret allegations against Ford’s R2 applications are limited to Ford’s 

Mix-Rate and Change Management applications.5

 (See Ex. B, Malek R2 Report at 

¶8 and Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 658:19-659:3; see also Dkt. #571 at 9.) 

Neither Ford’s original complaint, nor Versata’s original counterclaim, 

referred to Ford’s “Change Management” or “Mix-Rate” applications. (See Dkt. #6 

[Ford’s Complaint] and Dkt. #59 [Versata’s Answer & Counterclaims].) The 

pleadings made no mention of these applications because they did not replace any 

 3

 Some early materials relating to this application refer to it as “Mix, Rate & 

Price” or “MRP.” But because the production version of the application was 

launched without pricing features, Ford currently refers to the application as “MixRate” or “Mix & Rates.” 

4

 Ford decommissioned the Pricing Companion Tool and Versata makes no 

claims against it. 

5

 In addition to the fact that Versata has limited its R2 trade secret claims to 

the Mix-Rate and Change Management applications, Versata is also not any 

asserting patent infringement claims against any R2 application. (Dkt. #571 at 9: 

“Versata has not asserted any patents against PDO R2.”). Similarly, Versata has not 

made a copyright claim against any of Ford’s R2 applications. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49170 Page 9 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

5 

Versata software. As explained below, these applications provide different services 

unrelated Versata’s software and its alleged trade secrets. 

2. Ford’s R2 “Mix-Rate” Application6

Ford’s Mix-Rate application is a tool Ford uses to set the “mix” of offered 

vehicle variants (e.g., SE, SEL, Platinum, etc.), and the anticipated “take-rates” for 

optional vehicle features (e.g., moonroof, upgraded radio, etc.). (See Ex. G, 2017 

Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #301-5] at ¶8; see also Ex. C, Mix-Rate User Guide at 

FV135584-92.) Ford launched the Mix-Rate application in 2016. (Ex. G, 2017 

Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #301-5] at ¶8.) 

Like other “downstream” systems within Ford, the Mix-Rate application 

receives product definition data created in and exported from Ford’s PDO “R1” 

product definition software. (See Ex. F, 2018 Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #333-4] 

at ¶6.) Ford’s R2 Mix-Rate application does not, however, replace any of the PDO 

R1 functionality. (See id. at ¶¶4, 6-8; see also Ex. G, 2017 Beardslee Declaration 

[Dkt. #301-5] at 8.) And Versata’s expert, Dr. Malek, admits that the Mix-Rate 

application does not include any functionality provided in the ACM software 

Versata previously licensed to Ford. (Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 689:14-21.) 

 6

 Again, various materials refer to this particular software application as “MixRate,” “Mix & Rates,” “Mix, Rate & Price,” and/or simply “MRP,” which is 

commonly used by Versata’s expert. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49171 Page 10 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

6 

3. Ford’s R2 “Change Management” Application 

Ford’s R2 Change Management application is a utility Ford uses to manage 

approvals of its “product direction” information, which Ford calls “change requests.” 

(See Ex. G, 2017 Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #301-5] at ¶7; see also Ex. D, Change 

Management User Guide at FV098486-88.) The R2 Change Management 

application launched in October 2016 as a direct replacement for an earlier Fordbuilt system called “GPLUS,” which performed the same general functions. (Ex. G, 

2017 Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #301-5] at ¶7.) 

Ford’s Change Management application does not replace any of Ford’s 

originally-accused PDO R1 product definition software. (Id.; see also Ex. F, 2018 

Beardslee Declaration [Dkt. #333-4] at ¶¶4, 6-8.) Additionally, Versata’s expert 

admits that Ford’s Change Management application—like Ford’s Mix-Rate 

application—does not include any functionality contained in the ACM software 

Versata previously licensed to Ford. (Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 667:15-23, 

680:19-25.) 

B. The Special Master Previously Determined that Versata’s 

Trade Secret Claims Against Ford’s “R2” Applications 

Were Conclusory and Unclear 

Versata first asserted trade secret claims against Ford’s “R2” Change 

Management and Mix-Rate applications in Dr. Malek’s November 17, 2017 “reply” 

expert report. On January 12, 2018, Ford filed a motion to exclude Dr. Malek’s 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49172 Page 11 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

7 

“reply” opinions because they were conclusory, untimely, and because Ford’s R2 

applications do not perform the “product definition” at the center of this case. (Dkt. 

#328.) The Court referred Ford’s motion to the Special Master to “offer his 

recommendation with respect to whether PDO-R2 is accused in this action and 

whether PDO-R2 is relevant to Versata’s claims.” (Dkt. #329.) 

On February 8, 2018, the Special Master issued his Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) to grant Ford’s motion to strike Dr. Malek’s “reply” 

expert report on Ford’s R2 applications. (Dkt. #375.) According to the Special 

Master, Dr. Malek’s R2 opinions were “thin at best with respect to his trade secret 

opinions” because Dr. Malek “does not actually independently accuse PDO R2 of 

trade secret misappropriation.” Id. at 5. The Special Master found that Dr. Malek’s 

R2 “assertions are conclusory or admittedly speculative” and “do not meet the 

requirements of Rule 26 and make it difficult or impossible for Ford to understand 

them and defend against them.” Id. at 5-6. 

The Special Master noted another deficiency in Dr. Malek’s early opinions—

he did not clearly assert that Ford’s R2 applications “independently incorporate” 

Versata’s alleged trade secrets. 

It is unclear, for example, even at a basic level whether Dr. Malek 

asserts that any of the PDO R2 applications independently incorporate 

Versata trade secrets, or rather whether they are accused only because 

PDO R1 allegedly uses the trade secrets and the PDO R2 applications 

link to the PDO R1 applications. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49173 Page 12 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

8 

Id. As explained in the Argument section below, the Special Master’s observations 

regarding Versata’s PDO R2 allegations remain true today and are the focus of 

Ford’s motion for summary judgment. 

Versata objected to the Special Master’s R&R, and Ford opposed Versata’s 

objection. (Dkts. #385, 404.) The Court overruled the Special Master’s R&R and 

permitted “full blown discovery on R2” including Ford’s Change Management and 

Mix-Rate applications. (Dkt. #444, 3/9/18 Hrg. Tr. at 120.) 

C. Versata Offered to Drop, and Does Not Seek Damages for, 

Ford’s R2 Applications 

At the hearing on the Special Master’s R&R, Versata’s counsel offered to “get 

[R2] out of the case.” (Dkt. #444, 3/9/18 Hrg. Tr. at 116.) Versata’s counsel 

proposed “[n]o claims, no arguments about [R2], no more analysis, we shut it down.” 

Id. At that time, Versata asserted that its R2 claims were merely a “defensive 

measure” to prevent Ford from “whittl[ing] down” Versata’s billion-dollar damages 

claim. Id. at 118. As Ford explained at the hearing, Versata’s focus on Ford’s R2 

software had more to do with Versata’s damages claim that Versata’s trade secret 

claim. Id. at 109-110 and 117-119. 

Following that hearing, the Court limited Versata’s trade secret damages case 

to a theory based on the parties’ “licensing history” for the ACM and MCA software 

that Ford replaced with its PDO R1 software. (Dkt. #507 at 24-29.) Of course, the 

parties lack a “licensing history” in connection with the R2 applications or the 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49174 Page 13 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

9 

functionality they provide because those applications have nothing to do with 

Versata or the previously-licensed ACM software. Indeed, following the Court’s 

Daubert ruling, Versata’s trade secret damages expert, Craig Elson, confirmed that 

Versata is not seeking additional damages arising from Versata’s claims against 

Ford’s “R2” Change Management and Mix-Rate applications. (Ex. E, Elson 

12/10/18 Report at ¶16: 

) 

Versata’s expert did not calculate damages based on those applications (id.) and 

Versata has now unequivocally confirmed that it “is not asserting that the amount of 

damages increases as a result of PDO R2.” (Dkt. #571 at 9.) 

II. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY 

A. Summary Judgment Standard 

A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it “shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact....” SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Servs., Inc., 712 

F.3d 321, 326-27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (quotations omitted)). 

A movant can meet its summary judgment burden by showing that the 

nonmoving party has “fail[ed] to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49175 Page 14 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

10 

of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the 

burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

Moreover, the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the 

jury could reasonably find for [that party].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 252 (1986). 

When reviewing the record, “the court must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its 

favor.” SEC, 712 F.3d at 327. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. Ford is Entitled to Summary Judgment Because Versata 

Does Not Perform a Trade Secret Misappropriation 

Analysis In Connection With Ford’s Change Management 

and Mix-Rate Applications 

Versata does not attempt to perform a trade secret misappropriation analysis 

on Ford’s Mix-Rate and Change Management applications themselves. Versata’s 

expert, Dr. Malek, asserts that “Versata’s claims against PDO R2 involve trade 

secrets previously asserted against PDO R1.” (Ex. H, Malek R2 Reply Report at 

¶14.) Specifically, Dr. Malek asserts (1) that Ford’s Mix-Rate application practices 

the previously-asserted “Buildability” trade secret category, and (2) that Ford’s R2 

Change Management application practices the previously-asserted “Workspaces” 

trade secret category. (Ex. B, Malek R2 Report at ¶8; Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49176 Page 15 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

11 

Tr. at 658:19-659:3.) Dr. Malek confirmed during his deposition that Versata is not 

asserting any “new” trade secrets against Ford’s R2 applications. (Id. at 730:9-15.) 

Despite Versata’s “full-blown discovery” on Ford’s R2 applications, Dr. 

Malek’s expert report lacks a misappropriation analysis. He does not attempt to 

show, for example, how and where those applications allegedly practice the 

“Buildability” and “Workspaces” trade secret categories he has identified. 

Dr. Malek’s lack of analysis is compounded by the fact that Versata recently 

redefined its “Buildability” trade secret 

As explained in greater detail below with respect to each accused R2 

application, however, Dr. Malek’s R2 trade secret report does not analyze any of 

these “elements” let alone the new “combinations” in the accused applications. 

He does not attempt to show how, or where, Ford’s Mix-Rate and Change 

Management applications allegedly practice these “elements” or “combinations.” 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49177 Page 16 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

12 

According to Dr. Malek, Versata’s trade secret claims against Ford’s R2 

applications rise and fall with Versata’s trade secret claims against Ford’s 

previously-accused R1 software. 

Q. If a jury were to disagree with you and decide that there is

no misappropriation of Versata trade secrets in Ford's R1 

application, is there any basis set forth in your reports for 

a different liability decision with respect to R2? 

A. So if I understand correctly, what you're asking me is if 

there are – if suppose, let's say, that there are no 

misappropriation of trade secrets in PDOR1, would there 

be misappropriation by PDOR2; is that what you're 

asking?

Q. Right. 

A. I – I don’t think so.

(Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 730:16-731:4.) 

Consistent with this testimony, and as explained in greater detail below, Dr. 

Malek fails to show that Ford’s R2 Change Management and Mix-Rate applications 

practice alleged Versata trade secrets. Accordingly, summary judgment in Ford’s 

favor is appropriate. See, e.g., Stratienko v. Cordis Corp., 429 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 

2005) (affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment where the nonmoving party failed to provide sufficient evidence that its alleged trade secret was 

actually incorporated into the accused product); see also American Airlines, Inc. v. 

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Inc., 114 F.3d 108, 111-12 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment where non-moving party had only 

shown the existence of “at most...four of the five elements” of the alleged trade 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49178 Page 17 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

13 

secret); R C. Olmstead, Inc. v. C.U. Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262, 270-272 (6th Cir. 

2010) (affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment and decision to 

strike plaintiff’s trade secret expert report because the report failed to provide or 

explain the basis for the expert’s conclusion). 

Where there is insufficient showing to establish an essential element to the 

case, “there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure 

of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily 

renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23 (internal citations 

omitted). 

1. Versata Does Not Attempt to Show that Ford’s MixRate Application Practices the Alleged “Buildability” 

Trade Secret Combination 

Dr. Malek alleges that Ford’s Mix-Rate application “misappropriates 

Versata’s buildability trade secret.” (Ex. B, Malek R2 Report at ¶8.) Dr. Malek’s 

“analysis” in connection with this claim is set forth in paragraphs 95-99 of his report. 

(Id. at ¶¶95-99.) But Dr. Malek does not allege—let alone analyze based on cited 

evidence—that the Mix-Rate application includes or practices the six required 

“elements” of the alleged buildability trade secret “combination” discussed above. 

(Id.) 

Dr. Malek mentions the element, but he admits 

the Mix-Rate application “has no [such] ability itself.” (Id. at ¶8: “PDOR2’s MRP 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49179 Page 18 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

14 

component...has no ability itself to 

 During his deposition, Dr. Malek confirmed that the MixRate application lacks

(Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 728:22-729:5, emphasis added.) 

When asked about another element of the alleged buildability trade secret 

about which his R2 report is entirely silent—namely, use of —Dr. Malek 

testified that the only element he has considered with respect to Mix-Rate is the 

 element: 

(Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 738:13-23.) 

With this total lack of proof, Versata cannot sustain its trade secret claim 

against Ford’s Mix-Rate application. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23 (holding that 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49180 Page 19 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

15 

where a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an 

element on which it bears the burden, “there can be no genuine issue as to any 

material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of 

the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”) (internal 

citations omitted). Ford thus requests summary judgment on this aspect of Versata’s 

trade secret claims. 

2. Versata Does Not Attempt to Show that Ford’s 

Change Management Application Practices the 

Alleged “Workspaces” Trade Secret Combination 

Dr. Malek alleges that Ford’s Change Management application 

“misappropriates Versata’s workspaces trade secret.” (Ex. B, Malek R2 Report at 

¶8.) The “analysis” allegedly supporting this claim is set forth in paragraphs 100-

104 of his R2 report. (Id. at ¶¶100-104.) As with his allegations against the MixRate application, Dr. Malek fails to state—let alone analyze based on cited 

evidence—that the Change Management application includes or practices the 

 “elements” of the alleged trade secret. 

The only element related to the alleged “workspaces” trade secret that Dr. 

Malek even mentions is the feature. Yet, when asked about 

this element of the combination, Dr. Malek confirmed that he is not alleging that the 

Change Management application includes or practices the trade-secret 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49181 Page 20 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

16 

functionality—pointing instead to functionality in Ford’s originally-accused PDO 

“R1” product definition software: 

Q. You're not pointing to any portion of the change 

management application itself that implements the 

workspace's trade secret; is that correct? 

A. As I've said, I mean, change management represents 

new functionality in PDO that is a new usage of the 

trade secret.

Q. But we're not talking about a new .ꞏ 

We're talking about its use or reliance on 

 in R1; is that right? 

A. That's right. That's where the misappropriation of the 

trade secret is.

(Ex. A, Malek 3/26/19 Dep. Tr. at 756:5-15.) 

Having failed to prove, or even attempt to prove, that Ford’s Change 

Management application practices the alleged “workspaces” trade secret, Versata 

simply cannot sustain its trade secrets claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Ford 

thus requests summary judgment on this aspect of Versata’s trade secret case. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49182 Page 21 of 22
– REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION – 

17 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Because Versata has not shown that Ford’s R2 Change Management and MixRate applications practice any Versata trade secret, Ford is entitled to summary 

judgment on Versata’s claims against those applications. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 11, 2019 By: /s/ John S. LeRoy 

John S. LeRoy (P61964) 

Thomas A. Lewry (P36399) 

Jonathan D. Nikkila (P75666) 

Christopher C. Smith (P73936) 

1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor 

Southfield, MI 48075 

Tel.: 248-358-4400 / Fax: 248-358-3351 

jleroy@brookskushman.com 

tlewry@brookskushman.com 

jnikkila@brookskushman.com 

csmith@brookskushman.com 

James P. Feeney (P13335) 

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 

39577 Woodward Ave, Suite 300 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

Ph: 248-203-0841 

jfeeney@dykema.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ford Motor 

Company

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 646 filed 04/11/19 PageID.49183 Page 22 of 22