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 REPLY BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55074 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 20
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

A. Ford MIL 1: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

disparaging Ford or characterizing Ford using pejoratives, e.g., 

asserting that Ford “copied” or “stole” Versata software .....................1

B. Ford MIL 2: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

concerning irrelevant Ford payments to Versata ..................................3

Ford MIL 3: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

concerning Versata software other than ACM/MCA ...........................3

C. Ford MIL 4: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

concerning ownership of Ford’s data....................................................5

D. Ford MIL 5: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

concerning Ford’s IPR and CBM petitions...........................................5

Ford MIL 7: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

that Ford breached the 2002 SSA..........................................................5

E. Ford MIL 6: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

that Ford improperly hired Paul Seiler..................................................7

F. Ford MIL 8: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding the filing under seal and service of Ford’s complaint ..........8

G. Ford MIL 9: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding interpretation of the Master Subscription and Services 

Agreement (MSSA)...............................................................................9

H. Ford MIL 10: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding hypothetical “right” vs. “wrong” ........................................10

I. Ford MIL 11: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding Ford’s alleged “benefits” from using the ACM/MCA 

software ...............................................................................................11

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55075 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 20
ii

J. Ford MIL 12: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding Dr. Malek’s Excluded October 2018 Declaration ..............12

K. Ford MIL 13: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding “Jim Padilla” and related articles........................................13

L. Ford MIL 14: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding Versata’s excluded third-party licenses..............................14

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55076 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 20
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd. v. Yiren Huang, Case No. 4:17-CV-00893, 

2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78765 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2019)...................................2

In re Garrido, 

646 Fed. Appx. 942 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................1

Siporin v. Adler, 

364 Mich. 549 (1961)......................................................................................6

Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 

620 F.2d 399 (3rd Cir. 1980).........................................................................10

Torres v. County of Oakland, 

758 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1985).........................................................................10

Warsaw Ortho. Inc, v. Nuvasive, Inc., 

778 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................4

Rules

F.R.E. 402 ................................................................................................... 7, 8, 9, 15

F.R.E. 403 ............................................................................................. 7, 8, 9, 13, 15

F.R.E. 408 ..................................................................................................................9

F.R.E. 801 ................................................................................................................12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 .........................................................................................................8

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55077 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 20
1

A. Ford MIL 1: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

disparaging Ford or characterizing Ford using pejoratives, 

e.g., asserting that Ford “copied” or “stole” Versata software

Versata reads Ford’s motion in limine too broadly. Ford’s motion does not 

prevent Versata from comparing aspects of PDOR1 to ACM to support its trade 

secret misappropriation and patent infringement claims. Ford’s motion seeks only

to preclude Versata from asserting that Ford “copied” because the Court dismissed 

Versata’s copyright claim concluding at the summary judgment stage that Versata

lacked evidence that Ford copied. (Dkt. #601.) Permitting Versata to re-argue 

“copying” at trial will confuse the jury and unfairly prejudice Ford. As Ford 

explained in its opening brief, many courts exclude the use of terms such as 

“copying” for that reason.

Versata’s claims of “non-obviousness” and “willful” patent infringement do

not make dismissed allegations of “copying” admissible. For non-obviousness, 

Versata’s Dr. Shamos asserts there is a “strong inference of copying.” (Ex. K, 

Shamos Report, at ¶¶104-107, 278.) But Dr. Shamos: (1) did not take into account 

the Court’s dismissal of Versata’s copyright claim (where reasonable “inferences” 

were resolved in Versata’s favor), and (2) has not attempted to demonstrate the 

required “nexus between the copying and the novel aspects of the claimed 

invention.” In re Garrido, 646 Fed. Appx. 942, 944 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Dr. Shamos’ 

conclusory copying assertion is thus both legally and factually unfounded. Versata 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55078 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 20
2

similarly fails to connect its (dismissed) copying allegations to the claimed 

inventions underlying Versata’s willful patent infringement assertions. The Court 

should not permit Versata to rely on improper expert opinion to introduce 

unnecessary pejorative terms contrary to the Court’s summary judgment order. 

(Dkt. #601.)

Versata cites a single case—Huawei1—arguing it would be “absurd” to 

“force Versata to prove theft of trade secrets without using the word ‘theft.’” 

(Versata Rsp. at 4.) But Huawei did not involve a dismissed copyright claim or copending patent infringement claims. (Ex. L, Huawei Second Amended Complaint.)

And the correct word is “misappropriation,” not “theft.” “Theft” implies criminal 

activity, which is neither alleged nor present here. The trade secret statute 

mentions neither “copying” nor theft. Allowing Versata to label Ford a copier, or 

worse, will lead to jury confusion—not present in Huawei—about whether 

copyright claims remain in this case and whether Ford infringes Versata’s patents. 

Versata should not reference “copying,” “stealing,” etc. at trial. But if 

Versata is allowed to use such terms, or if Versata opens the door on the issue, the 

Court should permit Ford to tell the jury that the Court found that Versata failed to 

prove copying and dismissed Versata’s copyright claim.

1 Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd. v. Yiren Huang, Case No. 4:17-CV-00893, 2019 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 78765 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2018).

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55079 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 20
3

B. Ford MIL 2: The Court should exclude evidence and

argument concerning irrelevant Ford payments to Versata

Ford MIL 3: The Court should exclude evidence and

argument concerning Versata software other than ACM/MCA

Again, Versata reads Ford’s motions in limine too broadly. Ford’s motions

concerning irrelevant payments and irrelevant software do not prevent Versata 

from “tell[ing] the jury about its extensive software experience” as Versata claims. 

(Versata Rsp. at 5.) Versata may present evidence and testimony regarding its 

relevant software including its pre-ACM/MCA product definition software. 

(Motion at 9.) Accordingly, Ford’s motions do not prevent Versata from 

presenting evidence of the origin and ownership of the trade secrets. (See Versata 

Rsp. at 5.)

Versata’s desire to present evidence and testimony regarding irrelevant 

software such as Retail Config—including Ford’s payments for such software—

highlights Ford’s concern: if allowed to expand beyond relevant software and 

payments, Versata’s trial presentation will confuse the jury regarding the scope of 

the alleged misappropriation and may improperly inflate Versata’s claim for 

damages beyond the parties’ licensing history for the at-issue ACM/MCA 

software. Additionally, Versata’s introduction of such evidence will extend the 

length of trial, forcing Ford to present rebuttal witnesses and evidence concerning 

software and payments not at issue in this case.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55080 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 20
4

Versata’s response also refers to its contract and business relationship with 

 As detailed in Ford’s MIL No. 14, the Court should 

exclude evidence and argument regarding such third-party licenses to avoid 

confusion given the long licensing history between the parties in this case. 

Versata’s license with —involves 

different license fees and contractual obligations, all of which the parties would 

have to address extending trial and risking jury confusion.

2

Finally, Versata’s sole legal basis for introducing irrelevant software 

payments at trial relies on the damages theory of “convoyed sales under Georgia 

Pacific factor number 6” (Versata Rsp. at 7)—a newly concocted damages theory 

Versata has never disclosed despite its various discovery obligations to do so. 

Elson/Bokhart’s single paragraph analysis of “Georgia Pacific factor number 6” 

does not mention, let alone discuss, “convoyed sales.” (Ex. M, Elson/Bokhart 

Supp. Rpt., ¶172.) To obtain “convoyed sales” damages, a patent holder must 

prove that the other non-patented products sold are “functionally related” to the 

patented device and lack “use independent of the patented device.” See, e.g., 

Warsaw Ortho. Inc, v. Nuvasive, Inc., 778 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Because Versata and its experts have never disclosed this damages theory, they 

2 As explained in greater detail below, if Versata is permitted to introduce evidence 

regarding its , Ford intends to present the 

full scope of Versata’s relationship with 

. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55081 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 20
5

have failed to establish the required nexus between the ACM/MCA software at 

issue and other software. The Court should exclude this irrelevant damages 

theory.

C. Ford MIL 4: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

concerning ownership of Ford’s data

Versata does not appear to dispute that Ford owns its vehicle definition data

stored in ACM/MCA. Ford seeks only to prevent Versata from asserting that “it 

owns or has any proprietary rights to” Ford’s vehicle definition data. (Motion at 

10, emphasis added.) This limitation is appropriate given that there is neither a 

contractual nor factual basis for such an assertion, which is contrary the terms of 

the MSSA. Ford’s ownership of its vehicle definition data is relevant to rebut

Versata’s “reverse engineering” claim. There is no basis for Versata to allege—

contrary to the at-issue agreements—that it has some undisclosed ownership 

interest in, or proprietary rights to, Ford’s vehicle data in ACM/MCA.

D. Ford MIL 5: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

concerning Ford’s IPR and CBM petitions

Ford MIL 7: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

that Ford breached the 2002 SSA

Versata contends that Ford’s IPR and CBM petitions are relevant to 

Versata’s claim that Ford breached the 2002 SSA. But, as Ford established in its 

opening brief for MIL 7, Versata admitted that “[t]he MSSA superseded all the 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55082 Filed 04/09/20 Page 9 of 20
6

previous software agreements between Ford and Versata relating to ACM, MCA.” 

(Dkt. #371, at 7.) 

Despite its own admissions, Versata now claims it did not concede the 

MSSA superseded the SSA in “all respects.” But Versata’s contention is contrary

to the MSSA itself, which states that the MSSA “supersede[s] all proposals and 

prior discussions and writings between the parties with respect thereto.” (Dkt. 

#418-13, at §13.10.) Because both the 2002 SSA and the 2004 MSSA control 

software licensing between Ford and Versata (including the at-issue ACM 

software), the 2004 MSSA supersedes the 2002 SSA. Indeed, Versata has not 

complied with the 2002 SSA since the 2004 MSSA came into existence—that was 

the whole point of the 2004 MSSA. In any event, the Court must resolve which 

contract governs before the contract claims go to the jury. See Siporin v. Adler, 

364 Mich. 549, 552 (1961).

Even if the Court decides the 2002 SSA is not superseded, the only 

relevance of the IPRs and CBMs is the fact that Ford filed them, allegedly 

breaching the 2002 SSA. (Dkt. #244, at ¶159 (Versata counterclaim: “Ford 

materially breached these provisions by filing Inter Partes Review petitions”). 

Ford’s IPR and CBM petitions were denied for procedural reasons. As such, the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) never addressed the validity of 

Versata’s patents. Introducing evidence that Ford’s petitions were denied will 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55083 Filed 04/09/20 Page 10 of 20
7

likely confuse the jury into believing that the USPTO determined Versata’s patents 

are valid.

Thus, Ford’s petitions are irrelevant under F.R.E. 402 because the 2002 SSA 

has been superseded, and the USPTO’s refusal to take up Ford’s petitions on the 

merits is more prejudicial than probative under F.R.E. 403.

E. Ford MIL 6: The Court should exclude evidence and 

argument that Ford improperly hired Paul Seiler

Although Versata agrees that Ford’s decision to hire Mr. Seiler was not

improper (Versata Rsp. at 11), Versata intends to confuse the jury by linking Mr. 

Seiler’s work at Ford in connection with PDO R2 with Versata’s trade secret 

misappropriation claims against PDO R1. But Versata voluntarily dropped its 

claims against PDO R2 in August 2019, making Mr. Seiler irrelevant. (Dkt. #691.) 

Versata agreed at that time that it “will not make any claim, assertion or argument 

directed to PDO “R2” at trial. Id. 

 (Ex. D, Seiler Dep. Tr. at 291:5-9; 293:2-3; 321:19-20; 

Ex. E, Sullivan Dep. Tr. at 239:6-7, 21-24.)

Despite claims now made in its brief, neither Versata’s disclosures nor its 

experts’ reports previously asserted that Mr. Seiler had any role in Ford’s alleged 

trade secret misappropriation. Dr. Malek’s trade secret expert report fails to 

identify Mr. Seiler as having a role in the alleged misappropriation of any asserted 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55084 Filed 04/09/20 Page 11 of 20
8

trade secret and none of Versata’s trade secret misappropriation disclosures 

mention Mr. Seiler. 

Because Versata expressly authorized Ford’s hiring of Mr. Seiler (Ex. C at 

VRS00850770), and because he was not involved in the design or development of 

PDO R1, the Court should not permit Versata to state or imply to the jury that it 

was improper for Ford to hire Mr. Seiler. Such testimony is irrelevant under 

F.R.E. 402 and more prejudicial than probative under F.R.E. 403. 

F. Ford MIL 8: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding the filing under seal and service of Ford’s complaint

Versata agrees not to reference Ford’s filing of the Complaint under seal—

resolving that dispute. (Versata Rsp. at 12.) However, Versata continues to insist 

that the time it took Ford to serve the Complaint is relevant and admissible. First, 

Ford formally served the Complaint well within the 90 days allowed under the 

Civil Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Ford followed the rules; permitting this 

evidence will only confuse the jury into thinking Ford did not follow the rules. 

And, the day after Ford filed the Complaint, Ford sent a copy to Versata as a 

courtesy. (Dkt. #55 at 5, 11.) Versata could have answered the Complaint if it had 

wanted the case to proceed immediately.

Second, the record refutes Versata’s unsupported theory. Without evidence, 

Versata asserts that Ford delayed service of the complaint as part of some “master 

scheme to copy Versata’s intellectual property without any legal consequences.” 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55085 Filed 04/09/20 Page 12 of 20
9

(Versata Rsp. at 12, 13.) But Ford launched PDO R1 in December 2014—before

filing its Complaint in February 2015. (Dkt. #1.) Ford did not delay service of its 

complaint “to copy Versata’s intellectual property” as Versata alleges. On the 

contrary, the parties were engaging in F.R.E. 408 discussions. (Dkt. #55, at 5, 11-

12.) Allowing Versata to use the alleged “delay” against Ford is contrary to the 

Federal statute controlling service and would undermine a party’s willingness to 

engage in F.R.E. 408 discussions before serving a complaint contrary to public 

policy. The alleged delay is thus not relevant to any claim or defense in the case 

and is certainly more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 402, 403.

Versata’s request that Ford not tell the jury that Ford filed suit in order to 

vindicate its rights is unfounded and contrary to the Declaratory Judgment Act. As 

the Court already determined, Ford properly filed this case in Michigan where Ford 

resides and where the alleged wrongdoing took place. (Dkt. #55.)

G. Ford MIL 9: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding interpretation of the Master Subscription and 

Services Agreement (MSSA)

Ford’s motion in limine seeks only to exclude fact witness testimony 

regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the MSSA (and other contracts)—

not testimony regarding the contract’s existence or the circumstances of its 

enaction and extension. As demonstrated by the examples provided in the motion, 

Ford seeks to preclude Versata’s questioning of fact witnesses concerning the legal 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55086 Filed 04/09/20 Page 13 of 20
10

interpretation of contracts between Ford and Versata. Versata’s deposition 

questioning indicates, for example, an intention to ask Ford witnesses at trial 

hypotheticals about what was, and was not, permitted under the terms of the 

parties’ various contracts. Such questioning is improper as contract interpretation 

is a legal function for the Court, not the jury.

With respect to the Court’s denial of Versata’s “reverse engineering” 

summary judgment claim, Ford’s motion would not extend to the interpretation of 

relevant contract terms should the Court determine that there is an appropriate role 

for the jury in interpreting the relevant terms.

3

H. Ford MIL 10: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding hypothetical “right” vs. “wrong”

Versata conflates presenting witnesses’ fact testimony concerning at-issue 

liability questions with unqualified lay opinion testimony on legal issues. The 

former is appropriate, the latter is not. See Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 620 

F.2d 399, 404 (3rd Cir. 1980); Torres v. County of Oakland, 758 F.2d 147, 150 

(6th Cir. 1985). 

3 While the Court’s Summary Judgment ruling describes the “reverse engineering” 

clause as ambiguous (Dkt. 534 at 7-8), it is unclear whether the Court has made the 

additional determinations necessary for application of the parol evidence rule or 

the conditions for presenting that issue to the jury. 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55087 Filed 04/09/20 Page 14 of 20
11

I. Ford MIL 11: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding Ford’s alleged “benefits” from using the ACM/MCA 

software

Versata’s response is limited to generalities regarding “benefits” of 

ACM/MCA and ignores the specific basis underlying Ford’s motion in limine. 

Versata cannot proceed at trial in a manner that is fundamentally at odds with legal 

precedent and this Court’s rulings regarding damages. It is clear from Versata’s 

trial exhibit list that it intends to admit into evidence, for example, Versata-created 

documents purporting to estimate the benefits to Ford at (Motion Ex. 

A) and (Motion Ex. B). The introduction of these documents 

and/or similar evidence purporting to disclose the “benefits” provided to Ford is 

inconsistent with the Court’s unambiguous rulings excluding Versata’s damages 

theories “based upon the value of benefits Ford obtained by using Versata’s 

software.” (See, e.g., Dkt. #507 at 26, n.7.)

And, again, such documents and other evidence suffer the same core defects 

they did when Ford first moved to exclude Versata’s damages analysis: (1) most 

are over a decade out-of-date; (2) they do not reflect the parties’ licensing history; 

(3) they are not linked or otherwise apportioned to the asserted trade secrets or 

patents; (4) some do not even relate to the at-issue software; and (5) none address 

savings that ACM/MCA actually achieved or could have achieved. (See Dkt. #347 

at pp. 21-23.)

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55088 Filed 04/09/20 Page 15 of 20
12

J. Ford MIL 12: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding Dr. Malek’s Excluded October 2018 Declaration

Malek’s declaration is directed solely to information about cost savings, 

which is used only as an input into Elson’s scenarios 2 and 3; scenarios that 

remain excluded in the Court’s recent reconsideration Order. (Ex. N, Malek Dec., 

at ¶¶4, 47; Ex. M, Elson/Bokhart Supp. Rpt., at 73-77; Dkt. #724 at 41.) Thus, 

Malek’s declaration should remain excluded. 

Versata incorrectly asserts that Malek’s declaration is relevant to Elson’s 

Scenario 1. Versata cites a block of 10 pages, but those 10 pages relate to the nowexcluded “cost approach” to calculating damages. Instead, Elson’s Scenario 1 

reasonable royalty was calculated using a “market approach” based on the parties’ 

licensing history. (See, e.g., Ex. O, Bokhart 11/13/18 Dep. at 46:17-48:18.) 

Even if Malek’s declaration were somehow relevant to Scenario 1, the Court 

should exclude it for the independent reasons set forth in Ford’s motion to exclude 

Malek’s declaration. (Dkt. #578 and #617.) In its original Daubert rulings, the 

Court did not address Ford’s independent bases for excluding Malek’s declaration 

because the Court excluded Elson’s report in its entirety. (Dkt. #678 at 33.) But if 

the Court is going to revisit Malek’s declaration, it should likewise revisit Ford’s 

motion to exclude. Finally, Malek’s declaration itself is impermissible hearsay 

under F.R.E. 801.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55089 Filed 04/09/20 Page 16 of 20
13

K. Ford MIL 13: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding “Jim Padilla” and related articles

Versata posits, without explanation or elaboration, that these articles “are 

relevant to prove Versata’s trade secrets claims” because they “constitute [] 

evidence” that the trade secrets possess independent economic value under 

Michigan law. (Versata Rsp. at 21.) But Versata has volumes of admissible 

evidence to support the alleged “independent economic value” of the asserted trade 

secrets. The Jim Padilla articles are inadmissible for multiple reasons.

First, as Ford explained in its motion, the Jim Padilla articles are further 

examples of the outdated “benefits” documents the Court already excluded in this 

case.

Second, Versata asserts that “POM” referenced in the articles is “a suite of 

products” that included ACM. (Versata Rsp. at 22.) Versata does not dispute (i) 

that POM includes additional software that is not at issue in the case, and (ii) that 

none of the articles mention, let alone apportion, value to any asserted trade secret. 

The articles thus reference large figures without the required apportionment, and 

no expert has apportioned the figures. Consistent with the concerns the Court has 

already addressed in its various exclusion orders, the Jim Padilla articles overstate 

the license value that the parties already bargained for with respect to the at-issue 

software. Admitting the articles is thus contrary to the Court’s prior exclusion 

orders and is more prejudicial than probative. F.R.E. 403.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55090 Filed 04/09/20 Page 17 of 20
14

L. Ford MIL 14: The Court should exclude evidence and argument 

regarding Versata’s excluded third-party licenses

Versata opposes this motion in limine on the basis that its third-party 

licenses, while admittedly “not relevant to the value of ACM / MCA software,” are 

allegedly relevant to “Versata’s expertise in configuration software” and “why 

Ford chose Versata to solve its configuration problems.” (Versata Rsp. at 22-23.) 

Versata cites neither authority nor evidence to support those assertions.

Versata does not address the licenses raised in Ford’s motion 

 or the specific objections Ford raised with respect to their presentation to 

the jury.4 Versata does not dispute that the are unrelated to the atissue ACM/MCA software, and the Court already excluded testimony about them. 

(Dkt. #507 at 12-13.) Versata also does not dispute that the include 

different terms and fees than those set forth in the relevant Ford licenses.

4 As noted above in connection with MILs 2 and 3, Versata separately argues that 

its business and licensing relationship is relevant in part because it 

“rebuts Ford’s allegations that ACM is problematic software.” (Versata Rsp. at 6.) 

While Ford continues to oppose the introduction of third-party licenses into 

evidence, if Versata is permitted to introduce evidence regarding its business 

relationship , Ford will present additional witnesses and evidence at trial 

concerning that relationship—including evidence relating to 

.

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55091 Filed 04/09/20 Page 18 of 20
15

The Court should exclude these third-party licenses as they are not relevant 

to any claim or defense under Rule 402 and they more prejudicial than probative 

under Rule 403.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 9, 2020 By: /s/ John S. LeRoy 

John S. LeRoy (P61964)

Thomas A. Lewry (P36399)

Christopher C. Smith (P)

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

csmith@brookskushman.com

jnikkila@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. 748, PageID.55092 Filed 04/09/20 Page 19 of 20
16

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 9, 2020 , I electronically filed an 

UNREDACTED CONFIDENTIAL copy of FORD’S REPLY BRIEF IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS AMENDED MOTIONS IN LIMINE and all Exhibits in 

Support with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System’s SEALED 

DOCUMENT EVENT which will send notification to all registered participants of 

the ECF System. I have also submitted paper copies of all sealed documents via 

electronic means to counsel using the following information: 

Counsel for Defendants:

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

Development Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc.

AZA-Versata-Ford@AZALAW.COM

(which includes all the ECF Registered users)

 /s/ John S. LeRoy 

John S. LeRoy (P61964)

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 748, PageID.55093 Filed 04/09/20 Page 20 of 20