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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO MODIFY CAPTION (ECF #338) 

 In this action, Plaintiff Ford Motor Company seeks a declaration that it did 

not infringe certain patents and copyrights and/or misappropriate certain trade 

secrets. Ford has named three entities as defendants: Versata Software, Inc., Trilogy 

Inc., and Trilogy Development Group, Inc. (collectively, the “Versata Parties”). (See

Sec. Am. Compl., ECF #226.) The Versata Parties have filed counterclaims for 

infringement of the same patents and copyrights and misappropriation of the same 

trade secrets. (See Ans. and Counterclaims, ECF #244.) 

 Now before the Court is a motion by the Versata Parties to modify the case 

caption. (See Mot., ECF #338.) The Versata Parties ask the Court to remove Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. from the caption and to replace it with Versata 

Development Group, Inc. The Versata Parties contend that such a modification is 

appropriate and necessary because Trilogy Development Group, Inc. changed its 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40125 Page 1 of 12
2

name to Versata Development Group, Inc. in 2006. The Versata Parties say that the 

requested modification of the caption will accurately reflect the current name of the 

party that Ford sued and that has been participating in this action. 

 Ford opposes the Versata Parties’ request to amend the caption. (See Ford

Resp. Br., ECF #377.) Ford argues that the Trilogy Development Group, Inc. that it 

sued and that has been participating in this action is not the Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. that changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. Ford says 

that a different Trilogy Development Group, Inc. – there have been at least three 

corporations with that name – underwent that name change. Thus, Ford contends, 

inserting Versata Development Group, Inc. into the caption of this action would not 

merely correct the name of a party that is already before the Court. Instead, replacing 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. with Versata Development Group, Inc. in the 

caption would amend the pleadings to substitute a new party into this action. Ford 

insists that such an amendment may not properly be accomplished by a mere 

technical “correction” to the caption. 

 For the reasons explained below, the Court agrees with the Versata Parties. 

Accordingly, the Versata Parties’ motion to modify the caption (ECF #338) is 

GRANTED.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40126 Page 2 of 12
3

I

A

Whether to modify a case caption to reflect a party’s name change is ordinarily 

not a complicated question. Indeed, where a party has changed its name, courts often 

modify the case caption as a matter of course – sometimes without even being asked. 

See, e.g., Sharp v. Verizon Delaware, LLC, 2014 WL 350089, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. Jan. 

31, 2014) (sua sponte amending caption to “correctly identify the [d]efendant” 

where defendant asserted that plaintiff “ha[d] erroneously named the [d]efendant as 

‘Verizon Delaware, Inc.,’ a name it was formerly known by, instead of its now 

proper name, ‘Verizon Delaware, LLC’”); WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Family 

Support, Inc., 2011 WL 6884799, at *2 (D. Neb. Dec. 29, 2011) (modifying case 

caption “to reflect plaintiff’s name change” after plaintiff changed its name from 

“WWP, Inc.” to “Wounded Warrior Project, Inc.”). But the caption dispute before 

this Court is complicated because at least three entities have gone by the name 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. over the past thirty years; only one of those entities 

changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc.; and there is some reasonable 

ground for dispute as to which Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is and has been a 

party here.

The three Trilogy Development Group, Inc. entities in question are: 

1. A Delaware corporation once known as Trilogy Development Group, Inc.

This entity was incorporated in 1998 as Trilogy Software Company. (See

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40127 Page 3 of 12
4

ECF #377-10.) In 2006, it changed its name to Versata Development 

Group, Inc. (See ECF #377-11.) Versata Development Group, Inc. owns 

four of the patents at issue, the copyrights at issue, and the trade secrets at 

issue in this action. (See Ford Supp. Br., ECF #469 at Pg. ID 39048.) 

2. A second Delaware corporation that was incorporated as Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. in 1992. (See ECF #377-5.) In 2006, that entity 

changed its name to Versata Software, Inc. (See ECF #377-8.) Versata 

Software, Inc. owns a family of patents at issue and is a named party in 

this action. 

3. A California corporation that was incorporated as Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. in 1989. (See ECF #377-4.) This California corporation did 

not (and does not) own any of the patents, copyrights, or trade secrets at 

issue in this action. In 1992, this California entity merged into the 

Delaware Trilogy Development Group, Inc. identified in bullet two 

immediately above (see ECF #377-6), and, as noted above, that Delaware 

corporation later changed its name to Versata Software, Inc. (See ECF

#377-8.)

(See also Ford Resp. Br., ECF #377 at Pg. ID 22696-97; Versata Mot. for Summary 

Judgment, ECF #364 at nn. 29-30, Pg. ID 19670, and ECF ## 366-23, 366-24.) 

Before the Court may determine whether to replace Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. with Versata Development Group, Inc. in the caption, it must first decide 

which Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is a party in this case: Is it the one that 

changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. in 20061

 (#1 above) (as the 

Versata Parties contend) or is it the California corporation with the same name (#3 

above) (as Ford argues)?



1

 Ford does not dispute that the Delaware corporation now known as Versata 

Development Group, Inc. was once known as Trilogy Development Group, Inc. and 

changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. in 2006.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40128 Page 4 of 12
5

B

A review of the relevant evidence persuades the Court that the Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. that is and has been a party in this action is the Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. that was incorporated in Delaware in 1998 and that 

changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. in 2006. 

The Court looks first to Ford’s jurisdictional allegations. Ford alleges that 

“[o]n information and belief, Trilogy Development Group, Inc. ... is a California 

corporation having its principal place of business in Austin, TX.” (Sec. Am. Compl. 

at ¶3, ECF #226 at Pg. ID 11715.) This is some evidence that, as Ford contends, the 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. that is and has been a party here is the California 

corporation, not the Delaware corporation that changed its name to Versata 

Development Group, Inc.

But on closer inspection, Ford’s jurisdictional allegations fall short of 

establishing that the California Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is and has been a 

party here. As noted above, Ford qualified its allegation that Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. was a California corporation – making the allegation “[o]n information 

and belief.” (Id.) That qualification suggests that Ford may have been uncertain as 

to whether the Trilogy Development Group, Inc. entity that it sued was really a 

California corporation.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40129 Page 5 of 12
6

Moreover, the Versata Parties’ response to Ford’s jurisdictional allegations 

supports the Versata Parties’ contention that the Delaware Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. that changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. is and has 

been a party here. The Versata Parties denied that Defendant Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. is a California corporation. (See Ans., ECF #244 at ¶3, Pg. ID 12977.) 

And the Versata Parties explained that “Trilogy Development Group, Inc. changed 

its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. in 2006. All references herein to 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. herein shall also include Versata Development 

Group, Inc.” (Id.) Ford did not raise any contemporaneous objection to this 

clarification by the Versata Parties. In sum, Ford’s jurisdictional allegations and the 

Versata Parties’ response to those allegations, taken together, support the Versata 

Parties’ contention that Defendant Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is and has been 

the Delaware corporation that changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. 

 A review of Ford’s substantive allegations supports the same conclusion.2

Ford alleges that the defendants it named here are the corporations that own or claim 



2

 Courts may permissibly look to a complaint’s substantive allegations when 

determining whether to amend a caption to reflect the correct identities of the parties 

to an action. See 5A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §

1321 (3d. ed. 2004) (noting that courts “generally” modify case captions “[i]f the 

body of the complaint correctly identifies the party being sued”); see also Eberhard 

v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, 2013 WL 12293449, at *5 (N.D. 

Ohio Sept. 13, 2013) (“[T]he determination of whether a defendant is properly in the 

case depends upon the allegations in the body of the complaint.”); Rice v. Hamilton 

Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A party may be 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40130 Page 6 of 12
7

to own the intellectual property underlying Ford’s claims. Indeed, Ford continually 

refers to “Defendants’ patents” and “Defendants’ purported trade secrets.” (Sec. Am. 

Compl. at ¶8, ECF #226 at Pg. ID 11716; see also id. at ¶45, Pg. ID 11722, referring 

to “Defendants’ configuration patents”; ¶74, Pg. ID 11728, referring to “Defendants’ 

alleged intellectual property”). And, as Ford itself acknowledges, the Delaware 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. that changed its name to Versata Development 

Group, Inc. is the “exclusive owner of the asserted copyrights, [four of the asserted] 

patents, and the trade secrets” at issue in this action. (Ford Supp. Br., ECF #469 at 

Pg. ID 39048.) Thus, Ford’s claims are aimed in part at the Delaware entity that 

changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc., and Ford’s targeting of that 

entity – combined with the fact that that entity responded to Ford’s claims (see ECF 

#244 at Pg. ID 12977) – further supports the conclusion that that entity is and has 

been a party in this action. 

 In addition, Ford’s substantive allegations all but exclude the possibility that 

the California Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is and has been a party in this action. 

As noted above, Ford claims that the defendants it named here currently own or 



properly in a case if the allegations in the body of the complaint make it plain that 

the party is intended as a defendant” even where the party is not correctly identified 

in the case caption); Gilreath v. North Carolina ex rel. Cumberland County Board 

of Education, 2012 WL 1219765, at ** 4-5 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 10, 2012) (Examining 

“the body of the complaint” to determine the “intended” and named defendant where 

plaintiff did not “properly identif[y] the [defendant] in the complaint’s caption”).

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40131 Page 7 of 12
8

claim to own the intellectual property underlying Ford’s claims. But the California 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. “cease[d] to exist” in 1992 when it merged into 

another entity. Phillips v. Cooper Laboratories, 264 Cal.Rptr. 311, 318 (Cal. Ct. 

App. 1989) (explaining under California law the post-merger status of a corporation 

that merges into another corporation). Moreover, it is undisputed that the California 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc. never owned any of the intellectual property at 

issue in Ford’s claims. Furthermore, Ford repeatedly alleges that the defendants it 

named here are the corporations that entered into contracts with Ford in beginning 

in 1998 and to whom Ford paid millions of dollars since 1999 (see, e.g., Sec. Am. 

Compl. at ¶¶ 16-17, 21, 28, 76, ECF #226 at Pg. ID 11717, 11718, 11719, 11728), 

but since the California Trilogy Development Group, Inc. ceased to exist in 1992, it 

could not have entered into these contracts nor received the payments that Ford 

described.

There is also considerable evidence outside of the pleadings that undermines 

Ford’s contention that the California Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is and has 

been a party here. First, Ford has repeatedly confirmed, both on-the-record during 

the court’s hearing on Versata Parties’ motion and in supplemental briefing, that it 

“intended to name, and proceed through trial, with the correct parties in this case.” 

(Ford Supp. Br., ECF #446 at Pg. ID 36959.) The California Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. cannot be the “correct” party because it never owned or claimed to own 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40132 Page 8 of 12
9

the intellectual property underlying Ford’s claims. Second, a party named Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. has participated in discovery and all other aspects of this 

action for more than a year, and because the California Trilogy Development Group, 

Inc. ceased to exist in 1992, the Trilogy Development Group, Inc. that has been 

actively involved in this action cannot have been the California entity as Ford 

claims.3

 Third, Ford has not produced any evidence that it ever served (or attempted 

to serve) the California Trilogy Development Group, Inc. with service of process or 

that the California entity ever appeared in this action or defended against Ford’s 

claims in any way. 

Finally, representations that Ford has made to both this Court and the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas further support the conclusion 

that the Delaware corporation now known as Versata Development Group, Inc. is 

and has been a party here. Shortly after Ford filed its declaratory action in this Court, 

a group of Versata affiliates sued Ford in the United States District Court for the 



3

 Ford argues that the Delaware Trilogy Development Group, Inc. that changed its 

name to Versata Development Group, Inc. “cease[d] to exist in 2006” and thus 

cannot be the party that has participated in this action. (Ford Supp. Br., ECF #471 at 

Pg. ID 39067.) Ford is wrong. Unlike the California Trilogy Development Group, 

Inc., which “cease[d] to exist” under California law after its 1992 merger into 

another entity, see Phillips, 264 Cal.Rptr. at 318, the Delaware corporation now 

known as Versata Development Group, Inc. still exists today, just under its new 

name. Ford has not presented any authority to support its argument that a 

corporation ceases to exist after merely changing its name. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40133 Page 9 of 12
10

Eastern District of Texas for infringing several of the patents at issue in this case. 

The plaintiffs in the Texas litigation included Versata Development Group, Inc. See

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 15-cv-316 

(E.D. Tex. May 7, 2015). That entity identified itself as a Delaware corporation that 

was formerly known as Trilogy Development Group, Inc. The California Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. was not a party to the Texas litigation. 

Ford filed a motion to dismiss the Texas case. In that motion, Ford argued, 

among other things, that the Texas court should dismiss the action under the firstfiled rule and should require the Versata plaintiffs to litigate their claims against 

Ford in this action. (See id., Dkt. #14.) In support of that motion, Ford told the Texas 

court that the Texas litigation and this action involved “the same” parties. (Id., Dkt. 

#14 at 10.)4

 The Texas court accepted Ford’s arguments and dismissed the Texas 

action, in part, on the basis that “[t]he parties to this case [were] involved in parallel 

proceedings” in Michigan. (Id., Dkt. #70 at 1.) The fact that Ford told the Texas 

court and this Court that the Texas action involved the “same” and “identical” parties 

as the parties litigating in this case supports the Versata Parties’ contention that the 



4

 Ford likewise told this Court that this action and the Texas action “involve[d] 

identical parties.” (ECF #31 at Pg. ID 844.) 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40134 Page 10 of 12
11

Delaware Trilogy Development Group, Inc. now known as Versata Development 

Group, Inc. is and has been a party in this action.5

When the Court weighs and considers all of the evidence described above, it 

concludes that the Trilogy Development Group, Inc. that Ford named as a defendant 

in the Second Amended Complaint, and the party that has appeared in this case, 

answered the Second Amended Complaint, asserted counterclaims against Ford, and 

participated in discovery for more than a year, is the Delaware Trilogy Development 

Group, Inc. now known as Versata Development Group, Inc. And because there is 

undisputed evidence in the record that this Delaware corporation changed its name 

to Versata Development Group, Inc. in 2006 (see ECF #338-1), the Court will 

modify the case caption to reflect this name change. 



5

 The Versata Parties have argued that Ford should be judicially estopped from now 

taking the position that the Texas action and this action involve different parties. See,

e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Chester, Wilcox & Saxbe, 546 F.3d 752, 757 (6th Cir. 

2001) (“Where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds 

in maintaining that position, [it] may not thereafter, simply because [its] interests 

have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the 

party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by [it]”). The Court need 

not (and does not) reach that argument. The Court concludes only that Ford’s 

representations to the Texas court support the conclusion that the Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. that is and has been a party here is the Delaware Trilogy 

Development Group, Inc. that changed its name to Versata Development Group, Inc. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40135 Page 11 of 12
12

II

 For all of the reasons stated above, the Versata Parties’ motion to modify the 

case caption (ECF #338) is GRANTED, and the caption is modified to reflect the 

fact that Defendant Trilogy Development Group, Inc. is now known as Versata 

Development Group, Inc.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 5, 2018 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 5, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail.

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 499 filed 06/05/18 PageID.40136 Page 12 of 12