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-11264)

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S CORRECTED

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ON FORD’S CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY 

JUDGMENT OF NO COPYRIGHT 

INFRINGEMENT, AND ON DEFENDANTS’

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40803 Page 1 of 21
i

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

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

copyright claims where Versata failed to perform the threshold “filtration” 

step required to identify the protectable elements (if any) of the registered 

software that are original to Versata?

2. Should the Court grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on the parties’ 

copyright claims where Versata failed to establish “substantial similarity”

between (unidentified) protectable elements of the registered software and the 

accused “Jar” files?

Ford answers each: Yes.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40804 Page 2 of 21
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................. i

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

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

I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................2

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................3

III. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................5

A. Essential elements of a copyright claim................................................5

B. Expert analysis is needed to filter-out the functional and 

unprotectable elements of complex computer software........................6

IV. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................9

A. The Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor 

because Versata has not performed the Sixth Circuit’s threshold 

“filtration” step to exclude third-party and functional aspects .............9

B. The Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor 

because Versata has not compared (unidentified) protectable 

elements of the registered works with the (unexamined) “Jar” 

files Ford allegedly used to establish “substantial similarity” ............12

V. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................15

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40805 Page 3 of 21
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Auto Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 

2006 WL 3500868 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 4, 2006)...........................................7, 14

Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., 

756 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2014).............................................................. 8, 10, 11

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317 (1986).........................................................................................5

Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 

499 U.S. 340 (1991).........................................................................................6

Kohus v. Mariol, 

328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003)...................................... 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 

387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004)...........................................................................8

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

657 F.Supp.2d 878 (N.D. Ohio 2009) .......................................... 2, 5, 7, 8, 13

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

606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010).......................................................................7, 8

Statutes

17 U.S.C. §102(b) ................................................................................................6, 11

17 U.S.C. §111(a) ....................................................................................................13

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40806 Page 4 of 21
1

MOTION

Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) requests summary judgment in Ford’s favor 

on Ford’s declaratory judgment claim of no copyright infringement, and on 

Defendants’ (collectively “Versata’s”) copyright claim against Ford.

1

 Versata bears 

the burden of proof, but has no evidence on either prong of the Sixth Circuit’s twopart test for proving copyright infringement. Versata relied solely on its expert (Dr. 

Sam Malek) to establish copyright infringement. The Court recently excluded Dr. 

Malek’s analysis as unreliable, finding it in conflict with controlling law. (Dkt. 

#507.)

Because this is a complex software case that requires reliable expert analysis

to establish copyright infringement, Versata cannot establish liability as a matter of 

law. Thus, the Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on the pending 

copyright claims.

 

1 The relevant copyright claims are: [1] Versata’s copyright infringement 

counterclaim (Dkt. #244, Count 14 in Case No. 15-cv-10628), and [2] Ford’s claim 

for declaratory judgment of no copyright infringement (Dkt #1, Count 1 in Case No. 

15-cv-11264).

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40807 Page 5 of 21
2

BRIEF IN SUPPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on the asserted 

copyright claims because Versata has no evidence on either prong of the two-step 

test required by the Sixth Circuit for establishing copyright infringement. 

Specifically, Versata provides no evidence or analysis to: (1) filter-out unprotectable 

and unoriginal elements of the at-issue computer software, or (2) compare the 

(unidentified) protectable and original elements of the software, if any, with the 

software files Ford allegedly used.

Because this case involves complex computer software, both prongs of the 

two-step test require expert analysis. See Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 857-58 (6th

Cir. 2003); R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 657 F.Supp.2d 878, 894 (N.D. 

Ohio 2009), aff’d 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010). In its July 9, 2018 Daubert opinion, 

however, the Court struck the expert report of Versata’s copyright expert (Dr. 

Malek). Versata has confirmed that it will not provide a new copyright analysis from 

Dr. Malek. (Dkt. 514, n.1.)

Thus, Versata cannot establish copyright infringement as a matter of law. For 

these reasons, the Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on all 

asserted copyright claims.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40808 Page 6 of 21
3

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In April 2015, Ford filed a complaint against Versata seeking a declaratory 

judgment of no copyright infringement relating to Ford’s replacement of Versata’s 

“End of Life” ACM software. (Dkt. #1 in Consolidated Case No. 15-cv-11264.) 

Versata filed its answer in November 2015. (Dkt. #67.) Before reviewing a single 

line of code in Ford’s replacement software (called “PDO”), Versata asserted that 

Ford “copied” the ACM software, and described PDO as a “copycat” computer 

program. (Id. at pp. 28-29, 49, 51.) 

In discovery, Versata could not substantiate its unfounded “copying” 

allegations. On August 17, 2017, after spending more than a year inspecting Ford’s

PDO application, including all relevant documentation and the PDO “source code,” 

Versata’s technical expert, Dr. Sam Malek (“Malek”), served a copyright 

infringement analysis barely 5 pages in length. (Ex. A, Malek Opening Rept. at

¶¶69-72 and ¶¶421-437.) Malek did not assert, let alone support, Versata’s original 

claim that Ford’s PDO software was a “copy” of the ACM software. Id. In fact, he 

presented no copyright infringement analysis of Ford’s PDO software. Id.

Instead, Malek focused on the temporary presence of certain ACM/MCA

“Jar” files in a Ford software repository, called “Accurev.” Id. Ford has never 

disputed the presence of those files in Accurev. Before Ford’s license to use the 

“Jar” files expired, Ford executed the Jar files to confirm that the Ford data output 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40809 Page 7 of 21
4

from the ACM/MCA software matched the Ford data output from Ford’s PDO 

replacement software. (Ex. B, Malek Reply Rept. ¶¶302-303; Ex. C, Myers Rebuttal 

Rept., ¶707-709.) Malek did not identify any other Ford use of the at-issue “Jar” 

files.2 

In its July 9, 2018 Daubert opinion, the Court struck Malek’s copyright 

analysis in its entirety, finding that he did not conduct the “essential” filtration 

analysis to determine whether original and protectable elements exist in the 

registered software: 

Dr. Malek was required to conduct a filtration analysis even though 

Versata purportedly presented direct evidence of copying, and his 

analysis was flawed because he did not conduct that essential analysis. 

He did not make any effort to identify the elements of the software at 

issue that are not original, nor did he eliminate those unprotected 

elements before concluding that Ford infringed Versata’s copyrights. 

And his failure to do so was not a de minimis, inconsequential error. On 

the contrary, as Versata concedes, not all parts of the software that it

alleges Ford copied is protectable under the relevant copyright laws,

and thus it was critical for Dr. Malek to include a filtration step in his 

copyright infringement analysis.

(Dkt. #407 at 45.)

 

2 Malek also focused on the fact that copies of ACM/MCA Jar files resided 

on laptop computers of certain Ford employees. (Ex. A, ¶¶432-435.) Ford has never 

disputed this fact, as Ford used the ACM/MCA software for nearly 15 years. (Ex. 

C, Myers Reply Rept. at ¶710.) Versata has no evidence that Ford ever used the 

laptop copies in connection with PDO – they were not.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40810 Page 8 of 21
5

Versata did not seek reconsideration of the Court’s Daubert opinion and, in a 

July 16, 2018 letter to the Court, Versata stated that it was not going to replace 

Malek’s stricken copyright infringement opinions. (Dkt. 514, n.1.)

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment in copyright cases is “mandated by ‘the plain language of 

Rule 56(c) [which states that] after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 

against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of 

an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden 

of proof at trial.’” R.C. Olmstead, 657 F. Supp. 2d at 886 quoting Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

A. Essential elements of a copyright claim

“To succeed in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must establish that 

he or she owns the copyright creation, and that the defendant copied it.” Kohus, 328 

F.3d at 853. “A plaintiff may prove copyright infringement either by providing 

direct evidence of copying, or by providing indirect evidence of copying through 

showing (1) access to the original work, and (2) substantial similarity between the 

original work and the allegedly infringing work.” Id. at 854 R.C. Olmstead, 657 

F.Supp.2d at 890, citing Kohus, 328 F.3d at 854. “In either case, though, it is 

axiomatic that ‘[n]ot all ‘copying’ is actionable . . .; it is a constitutional requirement 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40811 Page 9 of 21
6

that a plaintiff bringing an infringement claim must prove ‘copying of constituent 

elements of the work that are original.’” Id. at 853 quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. 

Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) (emphasis in original).

In addition to the originality requirement, the Copyright Act expressly 

excludes from protection “processes,” “systems,” and “methods of operation” – all 

features commonly associated with computer software:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship 

extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, 

concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is 

described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. 

17 U.S.C. §102(b).

“Consequently, before comparing similarities between two works a court 

should first identify and eliminate those elements that are unoriginal and therefore 

unprotected.” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 853. In Kohus, the Sixth Circuit adopted a 

threshold “filtration” step to filter-out of a registered work (1) “unoriginal, 

unprotectable elements – elements that were not independently created by the author 

and that possess no minimal degree of creativity,” and (2) “those elements dictated 

by efficiency.” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 855-856.

B. Expert analysis is needed to filter-out the functional and 

unprotectable elements of complex computer software

Unlike expert testimony in non-technical cases involving music or artistic 

drawings, in technical copyright cases, “expert testimony will likely be required to 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40812 Page 10 of 21
7

establish what elements, if any, are necessary to the function” of the technology at 

issue in that case. Id. at 856 (emphasis added).

The first prong of the inquiry will almost certainly require expert 

testimony, because the drawings are technical in nature and a lay person 

is unlikely to understand what constitutes creativity in this area, which 

elements are standard for the industry, and which elements are dictated 

by efficiency or by external standards.

Id. at 857-858 (emphasis added). The copyright claim in Kohus concerned the 

technical design of a latch for a portable children’s play yard. Id. at 851. 

In R.C. Olmstead, the Sixth Circuit applied the Kohus test in the context of 

computer software. R.C. Olmstead, Inc., v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262, 275 

(6th Cir. 2010). In that case, the district court held “in the context of computer 

programming, legal copying requires rigorous analysis.” R.C. Olmstead, Inc., 657 

F.Supp. 2d at 894, quoting Auto Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 

2006 WL 3500868, at *6-7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2006) (emphasis added). The district 

court granted summary judgment in the alleged infringer’s favor when the copyright 

owner did little more than state that “Defendants copied ‘key elements’” and failed 

to offer “evidence or argumentation that these ‘key elements’ are indeed original 

constituent elements protected under the Copyright Act.” Id. Because of this failure

of proof, the court was “unable to engage in the filtration step required in Kohus.” 

Id.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40813 Page 11 of 21
8

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision holding:

All of the evidence offered by [RCO] clearly lacks the abstraction and 

filtration elements. [RCO] has not attempted to identify those elements 

of its software that are original; thus its substantial similarity analysis 

does not filter elements that would be expected to be common to any 

credit union software, those dictated by the particular business 

practices. 

R.C. Olmstead, Inc., v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262,at 275 (6th Cir. 2010). The 

Court emphasized that none of the plaintiff’s expert reports “even begin . . . to 

provide the kind of abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis” applied by the Sixth 

Circuit in Kohus. Id.

Similarly, in Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., 756 F. 3d 504, 

520-521 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in Paragon’s 

favor because Automated’s expert failed to identify elements in the allegedly copied 

computer software that were original, “subject to copyright protection,” and that 

went beyond unprotectable elements that “could be attributable to common usage, 

software/hardware requirements, or best practices.” The court rejected the expert’s 

assertion that the code included “unique protectable expression” because he did “not 

elaborate on which portions of the data are unique, what makes them unique, or why 

their particular form is not dictated by practical realities [], and therefore not subject 

to copyright protection.” Id. (emphasis in original) citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static 

Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 535 (6th Cir. 2004).

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40814 Page 12 of 21
9

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor 

because Versata has not performed the Sixth Circuit’s 

threshold “filtration” step to exclude third-party and 

functional aspects

The Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on Versata’s 

copyright claim because Versata has not performed the threshold “filtration” step to 

determine whether the at-issue software contains any elements that are original to 

Versata and protectable under the copyright laws.

Versata asserts that Ford infringed Versata’s copyrights by using certain 

versions of ACS, MCA and ACM outside the scope of the parties’ license 

agreement. (Ex. A, Malek Rept., ¶¶421-437; Dkt. #371 at 25-29.) Specifically, 

Versata registered ACM version 4.23.13.01, ACS version 02.26.01, and MCA 

version 02.02.14.01, but Versata alleges that Ford improperly used earlier versions 

of those programs. (Id. at ¶ 422-424.)

In its July 9, 2018 Daubert opinion, the Court excluded Dr. Malek’s 

infringement opinions because he failed to perform the Sixth Circuit’s threshold 

filtration analysis:

Because Dr. Malek did not apply the correct legal standard, his 

copyright opinions are not based on reliable principles and methods, 

and the Court will exclude them. See Mayo Clinic v. Elkin, 2010 WL 

5421322, at *6 (D. Minn. Dec. 27, 2010) (striking copyright 

infringement expert and concluding that expert’s infringement opinion 

was “not based on reliable principles” where expert failed to conduct

filtration analysis when analyzing copyright claim involving computer 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40815 Page 13 of 21
10

software); cf. Olin Corp. v. Lamorak Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1901634, at 

*21 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2018) (“Expert testimony [] should be excluded 

when it applies the wrong legal standard”); United States Gypsum Co. 

v. Lafarge North America, Inc., 670 F.Supp.2d 737, 745 (N.D. Ill. 2009) 

(excluding expert witness from testifying where expert “applied the

incorrect legal standard in formulating damages”).

(Dkt. #507 at 45-46.)

In Versata’s July 16, 2018 letter to the Court, Versata stated that it was not 

going to replace the copyright portion of Dr. Malek’s expert report in view of the 

Court’s Daubert decision. (Dkt. 514, n.1.) Versata thus has no expert analysis to 

present to the Court regarding the required filtration step. 

Versata has not filtered-out content that is not original to Versata. On the 

contrary, Versata admits that the ACM software includes third-party “open source”

software that Versata did not author and does not own. (Ex. D, Versata’s Supp. 

Resp. to Int. No. 5; Dkt. #155-2, Krauss Dep. Tr., 187:2-6.) In response to Versata’s 

motion for preliminary injunction, Ford demonstrated that one of the ACM files 

(“acmui”) contained over 50% third-party open source software. (Dkt. #155, Ford’s 

Opp. to Versata’s Motion for Prelim. Inj. at p. 31, citing Dkt. #159, McLoughlin 

Decl., ¶¶2-2.) Versata did not dispute Ford’s proofs. (Dkt. #199 at pp. 15-16.)

Versata has not identified elements of the registered software that are 

protectable, as distinct from elements that are commonplace or dictated by function 

or regular business processes. Like in Automated Solutions, Versata did not carveout aspects of the software that “could be attributable to common usage, 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40816 Page 14 of 21
11

software/hardware requirements, or best practices.” 756 F.3d at 520-521. Versata 

did not “elaborate on which portions of the data are unique, what makes them 

unique, or why their particular form is not dictated by practical realities.” Id.

In Kohus, the Sixth Circuit held that “expert testimony will likely be required

to establish what elements, if any, are necessary to the function” of the technology 

at issue in that case. Kohus, 328 F.3d at 856 (emphasis added). This is consistent 

with the Copyright Act, which expressly excludes from protection “any idea, 

procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, [or] principle.” 17 U.S.C. 

§102(b). Unlike a song, or an artistic painting, however, virtually all of the software 

at issue in this case is functional. ACM and ACS perform a variety of business and 

technical functions relating to “product definition,” and MCA performs technical 

and business functions relating to material cost forecasting. It was essential, 

therefore, that Versata filter-out these functional (and non-original) components of 

the ACM/MCA software to see what, if anything, remains as protectable and original 

to Versata.

Because Versata has not performed the required “filtration” step, the Court 

should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor on the parties’ respective copyright 

claims.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40817 Page 15 of 21
12

B. The Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s favor 

because Versata has not compared (unidentified) 

protectable elements of the registered works with the 

(unexamined) “Jar” files Ford allegedly used to establish 

“substantial similarity”

Independent of the fact that Versata has failed to perform the threshold 

“filtration” step addressed above, Versata has also failed to (i) establish that Ford 

“directly copied” the registered ACM/ACS/MCA code, or (ii) that the at-issue “Jar” 

files are “substantially similar” to the registered ACM/ACS/MCA code.

“A plaintiff may prove copyright infringement either by providing direct 

evidence of copying, or by providing indirect evidence of copying through showing 

(1) access to the original work, and (2) substantial similarity between the original 

work and the allegedly infringing work.” Kohus, 328 F.3d at 854. Versata has 

provided no analysis to show that Ford copied (directly or indirectly) any original 

and protectable aspects of the registered software.

Versata cannot prove “direct copying” because the registered software 

versions and the allegedly copied software versions are different. It is undisputed 

that Versata registered later versions of the ACM/ACS/MCA software than the 

versions it contends Ford copied. (Ex. A, Malek Rept. at ¶ 422-424.) Versata has 

provided no analysis to show that the software Ford “copied” and the registered 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40818 Page 16 of 21
13

versions are identical.3 In fact, Versata’s witnesses admit that they are not identical, 

stating only that “overlap” exists between the various software versions. (Ex. A, 

Malek Rept., ¶¶423-424.) Versata also cannot prove direct copying of the 

protectible elements of the works because it has no analysis of which elements (if 

any) are protectible, as discussed above. 

Thus, Versata’s only recourse is to prove “indirect copying” through a 

“substantial similarity” analysis. But like the threshold “filtration” analysis

addressed above, the law requires expert analysis in complex software cases to prove 

“substantial similarity.” In Kohus, the Sixth Circuit has held that “substantial 

similarity” is to be determined by the “intended audience” which, in technical cases, 

is not the “lay public.” Id. 857-858 (“Expert testimony will usually be necessary to 

educate the trier of fact in those elements for which the specialist will look.”) In 

R.C. Olmstead – a computer software case – the district court held that expert 

testimony “will usually be required” to perform the substantial similarity 

comparison:

In cases where the target audience possesses specialized expertise, 

however, the specialist's perception of similarity may be much different 

from the lay observer's, and it is appropriate in such cases to consider 

similarity from the specialist's perspective. Where the targeted 

audience is composed of specialists, expert testimony will usually be 

 

3 The Copyright Act states that “no civil action for infringement of the 

copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or 

registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 

U.S.C. §111(a) (emphasis added). 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40819 Page 17 of 21
14

necessary to educate the trier of fact in those elements for which the 

specialist will look.

657 F.Supp.2d at 894, citing Kohus, 328 F.3d at 857 (citations and quotations 

omitted), see also Auto Inspection Services, Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc., 2006 

WL 3500868, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2006) (“In the context of computer source 

code, this comparison should be made by a person with specialized knowledge in 

computer programming.”).

In the present case, Versata has presented no analysis demonstrating a 

“substantial similarity” between the (unidentified) original and protectable elements 

of the registered computer software on the one hand, and the “Jar” files Ford 

allegedly misused on the other hand. Versata has never produced, and its expert has 

never reviewed, the “Jar” files Versata alleges Ford copied. (Ex. E, Malek 12/20/17 

Dep. Tr. at 146-147, “I don’t have access to those Jar files” and “the Jar files that 

were the subject of the copyright infringement have not been made available to me.”) 

Versata thus has no basis upon which to assert that the software files Versata 

registered are “substantially similar” to the Jar files Versata alleges Ford copied.

In addition, the software versions Ford allegedly used are earlier than the 

software versions Versata registered. (Ex. A, Malek Rept. at ¶¶ 422-424.) While 

Versata’s now-excluded expert opined that some “overlap” likely exists between the 

various software versions, he presented no analysis showing the alleged overlap (or 

whether the overlapping code is protectable and original to Versata). 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40820 Page 18 of 21
15

Because Versata cannot establish “substantial similarity” between 

(unidentified) protectable elements in the registered software, and that at-issue “Jar” 

files, summary judgment in Ford’s favor is appropriate. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court should grant summary judgment in Ford’s 

favor on Ford’s claim for declaratory judgment of no copyright infringement, and 

Versata’s copyright infringement counterclaim.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: August 2830, 2018 By: /s/ John S. LeRoy 

John S. LeRoy (P61964)

Thomas A. Lewry (P36399)

Frank A. Angileri (P45611)

Chanille Carswell (P53754)

Christopher C. Smith (P73936)

John P. Rondini (P72254)

Jonathan D. Nikkila (P75666)

1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor

Southfield, MI 48075

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

jleroy@brookskushman.com

tlewry@brookskushman.com

fangileri@brookskushman.com

ccarswell@brookskushman.com

jrondini@brookskushman.com

jnikkila@brookskushman.com

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40821 Page 19 of 21
16

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. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40822 Page 20 of 21
17

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 2830, 2018, I electronically filed a copy of

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON FORD’S CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF 

NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, AND ON DEFENDANTS’ 

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM and BRIEF IN SUPPORT with the 

Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Michigan using the ECF System which 

will send notification to the following registered participants of the ECF System as 

listed on the Court's Notice of Electronic Filing: Rodger D. Young at 

efiling@youngpc.com; James P. Feeney at jfeeney@dykema.com,

srobb@dykema.com & docket@dykema.com; Steven Mitby at 

smitby@azalaw.com; Martha J. Olijnyk at mjo@millerlawpc.com & 

aad@millerlawpc.com; Lanny J. Davis at ldavis@lannyjdavis.com; Stephen W. 

King at sking@kingandmurray.com; Iftikhar Ahmed at IftiAhmed@azalaw.com; 

Sharoon Saleem - sharoon.saleem@jonesspross.com; Jaye Quadrozzi –

efiling@youngpc.com; Kyril Talanov – ktalanov@azalaw.com; M. Jason Ballard –

mjballard@azalaw.com. 

 /s/ John S. LeRoy 

John S. LeRoy (P61964)

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 532 filed 08/30/18 PageID.40823 Page 21 of 21