`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., §
`F/K/A TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, §
`INC., VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC., F/K/A
`§
`TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.,
`§
`AND TRILOGY, INC.
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`CASE NO. _______________
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Versata Development Group, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Development Group, Inc.,
`
`Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Software, Inc. (collectively “Versata”) and Trilogy, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Versata”) respectfully file this Original Complaint for patent infringement, trade
`
`secret misappropriation, conversion, and breach of contract against Ford Motor Company
`
`(“Ford”).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Ford Motor Company Has Misappropriated Versata’s Trade
`Secrets and Infringed Versata’s Patents.
`
`
`
`Versata is an enterprise software company whose patented design and lead management
`
`systems have revolutionized the automotive industry. Versata’s innovative software powers the
`
`world’s leading automotive companies including Ford, GM, Nissan, Chrysler, Toyota, Hyundai,
`
`Kia, Volvo, and Jaguar. Among Versata’s most valuable intellectual property is its technology
`
`for its patented automotive configuration manager software. Despite achieving hundreds of
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2
`
`millions of dollars in cost savings from its use of Versata’s software, Ford has decided that it
`
`would be cheaper to steal this technology than to pay for it.
`
`
`
`Versata licensed its automotive configuration software to Ford from October 19, 1998 to
`
`January 15, 2015. The license agreement was regularly renegotiated, pursuant to a series of
`
`agreements ranging in length from one to three years. Over the life of these agreements, the cost
`
`savings from Versata’s software generated hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue
`
`for Ford. Yet Ford never paid more than $8.45 million per year in fees to Versata for a license to
`
`this software. During the last decade of the companies’ business relationship, Versata never
`
`raised its annual licensing fees and only increased maintenance fees once.
`
`
`
`When the parties met to renegotiate the software licensing agreement in 2014, Versata
`
`requested a modest increase in its annual licensing fee for the automotive configuration software.
`
`Ford refused. When Ford realized that Versata would not cow to its demand for a perpetual,
`
`sweetheart licensing deal, it used a different tactic. Ford suspended negotiations and allowed the
`
`software licensing agreement to expire. But Ford did not stop using Versata’s software; it just
`
`stopped paying for it. Compounding this injustice, Ford filed a patent application (and received
`
`a patent) for software that duplicates the automotive configuration software it had been licensing
`
`from Versata.
`
`
`
`Ford is so desperate to avoid liability for this misconduct that it took the extraordinary
`
`step of suing itself in Michigan to secure hometown venue. Ford filed a placeholder action under
`
`seal on February 19, 2015. But, to date, Ford has not served this action. This delay tactic
`
`strongly indicates that Ford wants to delay resolution of its dispute with Versata until it can
`
`reduce or eliminate its reliance on Versata’s software.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Because Ford should not be permitted to profit from this tactic, Plaintiffs bring this
`
`Complaint seeking restitution and injunctive relief.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Versata Development Group, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Development Group,
`
`Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at
`
`6011 W. Courtyard, Austin, Texas 78730.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Software, Inc., is a corporation
`
`existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 6011 W. Courtyard,
`
`Austin, Texas 78730.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Trilogy, Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of Texas with its
`
`principal place of business at 6011 W. Courtyard, Austin, Texas 78730.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Ford Motor Company is a corporation existing under the laws of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business at One American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48126.
`
`Ford regularly conducts business in Texas and may be served through its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation, at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.
`
`JURISDICITON AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 4
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Ford and Trilogy Sign a Series of Software Licensing Agreements
`
`8.
`
`Versata is an enterprise software company. Versata develops some of the most
`
`successful, sophisticated, and powerful enterprise software in the United States. One of
`
`Versata’s main areas of focus is configuration.
`
`9.
`
`Versata and its subsidiaries have developed software comprised of technical data,
`
`formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, and other trade secret information for the purpose of
`
`assisting automotive manufactures in designing and configuring automotive product lines as well
`
`as financially forecasting costs and profits.
`
`10.
`
`Between 1998 and 2014, Versata (known previously as Trilogy) disclosed certain
`
`trade secret and other confidential information that it developed and owns, including its
`
`proprietary technology for configuring, designing, pricing, and comparing vehicles (the
`
`“Confidential Information”), pursuant to the terms of a series of agreements between Ford and
`
`Trilogy.
`
`11.
`
`Ford, like other auto manufacturers, sells a wide range of vehicle lines in different
`
`vehicle categories, such as compact cars, SUVs, sedans, and pickup trucks. Each vehicle line in
`
`each category has many different configurations and options. For example, most vehicles are
`
`offered with more than one engine choice, more than one transmission choice, more than one
`
`wheel choice, and several other configurations and options.
`
`12.
`
`Not all Ford vehicle components are compatible with one another. For example a
`
`particular engine may not be compatible with a particular transmission. But a particular wheel
`
`might be compatible with dozens of different body types and vehicle categories. Given the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 5
`
`complexity and options available on a particular vehicle, millions of configurations are possible
`
`for each vehicle line.
`
`13. When Ford’s internal configuration software proved incapable of handling the
`
`complexity and volume of data required to support modern automotive manufacturing needs,
`
`Ford turned to Trilogy for help.
`
`14.
`
`In 1998, Ford signed a contract services software licensing agreement with
`
`Trilogy (the “CSA”), which permitted Ford to license Trilogy’s revolutionary automotive
`
`configuration software in return for an annual licensing fee. A true and correct copy of the CSA
`
`is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.”
`
`15.
`
`The CSA specified that, except for certain custom portions to which Ford was
`
`specifically assigned ownership in written assignment orders, Trilogy “retain[ed] all rights, title
`
`and interest in and to the software and/or related documentation provided to [Ford] by [Trilogy],
`
`including, without limitation, the Non-Custom Elements … and all copyright, trade secret and
`
`other rights relating thereto.” (Ex. 1 at 2).
`
`16.
`
`Ford also acknowledged in the CSA that “the ‘Non-Custom Elements’ include[d]
`
`… the know-how, technique, concepts, methods, coding, designs, inventions, procedures or other
`
`subject matter of the Developed Software, whether or not included in the Custom Portions, if
`
`such subject matter is not specific to, or can be made nonspecific to, [Ford].” (Ex. 1 at 3).
`
`17.
`
`Ford further agreed to “restrict access to [Trilogy’s] Confidential Information
`
`only to owners, employees, and contractors who (i) require access in the course of their assigned
`
`duties and responsibilities, and (ii) have agreed in writing to be bound by provisions no less
`
`restrictive than those set forth in [the CSA].” (Ex. 1 at 3).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 6
`
`18.
`
`In 2004, Ford and Trilogy entered into a second comprehensive license agreement
`
`for use of a new software technology known as the “Automotive Configuration Manager”
`
`(“ACM”). Like the earlier software that Ford licensed from Trilogy, the ACM technology was
`
`developed by Trilogy, which then licensed this propriety technology to Ford.
`
`19.
`
`In December 2004, Ford and Trilogy entered into a Master Subscription and
`
`Services Agreement (“MSSA”), governing Ford’s licensing of the Trilogy’s proprietary ACM
`
`technology. A true and correct copy of the MSSA is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`20.
`
`Like the CSA, the MSSA granted Ford a license to use Trilogy’s patented ACM
`
`software. It did not, however, grant Ford ownership of the underlying technology which
`
`powered Ford’s configuration and financial forecasting systems. While Ford owned the rights to
`
`certain minor customizations of the software, it did not own the underlying ACM technology.
`
`Trilogy’s ACM software was the engine that drove Ford’s entire configuration process. And just
`
`as a Ford Taurus would not run without a Ford engine, Ford’s configuration and financial
`
`forecasting systems would not run without Trilogy’s ACM software.
`
`21.
`
`The MSSA made plain that Trilogy retained all rights to its proprietary ACM
`
`technology.
`
`22.
`
`For example, in Section 6 (“Ownership”), the MSSA specifically provides that
`
`“[b]y signing this Agreement, Ford irrevocably acknowledges that, subject to the licenses
`
`granted herein, Ford has no ownership interest in the Software, Deliverables that are owned by
`
`Trilogy pursuant to Section 1.8, or Trilogy Materials provided to Ford.” (Ex. 2 at 5).
`
`23.
`
`The MSSA further specified in Section 7.4 (“Ownership of Confidential
`
`Information”) that “[n]othing in this Agreement shall be construed to convey any title or
`
`ownership rights to the Software or other Trilogy Confidential Information to Ford or to any
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 7
`
`patent, copyright, trademark, or trade secret embodied therein, or to grant any other right, title, or
`
`ownership interest to the Trilogy Confidential Information.” (Ex. 2 at 5).
`
`24.
`
`The MSSA also contained a number of additional safeguards to protect Trilogy’s
`
`Confidential Information.
`
`25.
`
`Like the CSA, Ford agreed in Section 7.5 that it would “at all times use
`
`Reasonable Care in preventing the disclosure of Confidential Information belonging to
`
`[Trilogy].” Ford further agreed “to restrict access to [Trilogy’s] Confidential Information only to
`
`those employees and third-party contractors or agents who (i) require access in the course of
`
`their assigned duties and responsibilities and (ii) have agreed in writing to be bound by
`
`provisions no less restrictive than those set forth in the [MSSA].” (Ex. 2 at 5).
`
`26.
`
`Ford also agreed in Section 1.7 that “[i]n no event shall Ford disassemble,
`
`decompile, or reverse engineer [Trilogy’s] Software or Confidential Information … or permit
`
`others to do so.” (Ex. 2 at 2).
`
`27.
`
`Finally, Ford agreed that “Ford may use Trilogy’s Confidential Information solely
`
`in connection with the Software and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.” (Ex. 2 at 2).
`
`28.
`
`In order to ensure that Ford would comply with the restrictions on its use of
`
`Trilogy’s Confidential Information, Trilogy negotiated the right to conduct verification audits at
`
`Ford.
`
`29.
`
`Under Section 3.5 of the MSSA, Ford agreed that “Trilogy may, upon thirty (30)
`
`days prior written notice, enter Ford’s premises to verify Ford’s compliance with the provisions
`
`of this Agreement at Trilogy’s expense.” (Ex. 2 at 4).
`
`30.
`
`Ford also agreed in Section 12 (“Ford Obligations”) that “Ford [would] up
`
`reasonable request, reasonably make available to Trilogy certain of its facilities, computer
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 8
`
`resources, software programs, networks, personnel, and business information as are required to
`
`perform any Work, service, or other obligation hereunder.” (Ex. 2 at 7).
`
`31.
`
`Finally, the MSSA provided in Section 1.3 that, unless it was terminated by one
`
`of the parties, the license agreement would “automatically renew for successive twelve-month
`
`periods (“Annual Renewal Periods”) upon issuance of a valid Ford purchase order to Trilogy.
`
`(Ex. 2 at 1.3). The practical effect of this provision was to require the parties to renegotiate the
`
`MSSA on an annual basis, or the license agreement would simply automatically renew itself
`
`under the prior year’s terms.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Ford Decides It Would Be Cheaper To Steal Trilogy’s Software Than To Keep Paying
`For It
`
`32.
`
`Trilogy’s ACM proved immensely valuable to Ford. The ACM technology
`
`allowed engineers from Ford’s facilities across the world to collaborate and design Ford vehicles
`
`with seamless real time updates. The ACM software also allowed Ford’s financial managers to
`
`forecast pricing and demand with hitherto unrivaled accuracy and precision.
`
`33.
`
`Trilogy’s ACM technology was so powerful that Ford rapidly adopted Trilogy’s
`
`propriety software in every Ford manufacturing facility and every Ford corporate office across
`
`the United States, Europe, and Asia. Much like Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat, Trilogy’s
`
`ACM software rapidly became embedded across Ford’s global technology platform.
`
`34.
`
`In addition to Trilogy’s ACM technology, Ford also entered into a number of
`
`separate licensing agreements to use other patented software technologies, including software
`
`that permitted retail customers to “build” their own vehicles using the Ford.com website and
`
`financial forecasting software that allowed area managers to track inventory and supply.
`
`35.
`
`Among the additional software applications that Ford employed was an internet
`
`software program that allows Ford dealerships around the United States to configure and order
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 9
`
`vehicles from Ford. This web-based program is known variously as WBDO or WEBDO
`
`(acronyms for “web based dealership orders”). ACM is the “engine” that drives the WEBDO.
`
`The WEBDO software program is dependent upon ACM for configuring vehicles. Upon and
`
`information and belief, Ford, in violation of the MSA, is still providing the WEBDO software
`
`application to Ford Dealerships around the United States, including Bob Tomes Ford, located at
`
`950 South Central Expressway in McKinney, Texas; Five Star Ford of Plano located at 4400
`
`West Plano Parkway in Plano, Texas; North Central Ford located at 1819 North Central
`
`Expressway in Richardson, Texas; and Rockwall Ford located at 990 East I-30 in Rockwall,
`
`Texas.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, the WEBDO software application dependent on
`
`Versata’s ACM technology is also being used by Ford’s Corporate Southwest Regional Sales
`
`Office located at 5700 Granite Parkway, Suite 1000, in Plano, Texas, 75024.
`
`37.
`
`Trilogy’s ACM technology revolutionized Ford’s business practices, and saved
`
`Ford hundreds of millions by speeding time to market and reducing recalls. But Ford’s cost to
`
`license this technology was paltry in comparison to the benefits it provided. Beginning in 2004,
`
`Ford paid Trilogy an $8.45 million annual license fee—a license fee that remained unchanged
`
`over the next decade. But even this $8.45 million annual license fee was more than Ford wanted
`
`to pay.
`
`38.
`
`Beginning in 2010, without telling Versata, Ford began developing its own
`
`version of Trilogy’s proprietary configuration software. On information and belief, Ford
`
`breached its obligations to Trilogy by reverse engineering Trilogy’s patented and copyrighted
`
`software and disseminating Trilogy’s Confidential Information to unauthorized users tasked with
`
`creating a copycat configuration technology.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 10
`
`39.
`
`At no time between 2010 and 2014, did Ford inform Trilogy that its engineers
`
`where developing a rival configuration software. In October 2011, Ford filed a patent
`
`application on its rival configuration software. In August 2014, Ford received a patent covering
`
`its copycat “invention,” U.S. Patent No. 8,812,375 (the ‘375 patent). A true and correct copy of
`
`the ‘375 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`40.
`
`In 2014, Ford and Trilogy, which by now had become part of Versata Software,
`
`Inc., began negotiating a renewal of the ACM software license.
`
`41.
`
`During the negotiations, Versata informed Ford that it was unwilling to extend the
`
`software licensing agreement without an increase in the annual licensing fee. To facilitate
`
`negotiations, Versata made a number of proposals, including a proposal that Ford could license
`
`all of its major software products, including the ACM software, for a single $17 million a year
`
`annual license fee.
`
`42.
`
`Ford refused to negotiate with Versata. Instead, Ford attempted to renew the
`
`license under the old terms through subterfuge.
`
`43.
`
`In fall 2014, Ford sent a check for $8.45 million to Versata’s accounting
`
`department, apparently in the hopes that Versata would knowingly—or unknowingly—cash the
`
`check and renew the ACM license. Versata returned the check to Ford.
`
`44. When Ford’s initial scheme failed, it then attempted to renew the ACM license by
`
`submitting purchase orders through both its European and American offices requesting renewal
`
`of the “2015 ACM License.” Versata rejected those purchase orders as well.
`
`45.
`
`Finally, on October 7, 2014, with no deal in sight and facing an automatic renewal
`
`of the license agreement if it did not act, Versata was forced to notify Ford in writing that it was
`
`terminating the existing license agreement as of January 15, 2015. Versata also notified Ford
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 11
`
`that, pursuant to Section 11.4 of the MSSA, Ford was “required to cease using all … Versata
`
`Software and Materials … and return the same to Versata or destroy all such Versata Software
`
`and Materials and Confidential Information from all Ford systems, records or repositories.”
`
`46.
`
`In the hope that the parties could reach an agreement, Versata continued to
`
`negotiate with Ford. But Ford refused to pay any increase for its use of the ACM license—
`
`despite the fact that it had enjoyed the same (now heavily discounted) price for a decade.
`
`47.
`
` By November 2014, Versata became concerned that Ford intended to breach the
`
`MSSA by continuing to use Trilogy’s ACM software without paying any licensing fees. To
`
`address this concern, Versata sent Ford a letter on November 20, 2014 informing Ford that
`
`Versata intended to conduct visit Ford’s facilities “to verify your compliance with the terms of
`
`the Agreement concerning your deletion [of the ACM software] and return of all of the …
`
`Software, the licenses of which have been terminated and all the materials related to such
`
`terminated Software.” But, in breach of the parties’ contract, Ford refused to allow Versata to
`
`visit its facilities, speak with its employees, or conduct the audit that Ford had specifically agreed
`
`to in sections 3.5 and 12.2 of the MSSA.
`
`48.
`
`On December 19, 2014, Versata met with Ford management at the Ford
`
`headquarters in Michigan. At that meeting, Ford informed Versata that they were terminating
`
`the ACM software license. Ford further informed Versata for the first time that Ford was
`
`switching to its own, newly developed configuration software – software that Ford had never
`
`disclosed to Versata that it was developing.
`
`49.
`
`On February 19, 2015, Ford filed a lawsuit against Versata in Michigan seeking a
`
`declaratory judgment that its new, copycat configuration software did not infringe Versata’s
`
`patents or otherwise reflect that Ford had stolen Versata and Trilogy’s Confidential Information.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 12
`
`50.
`
`Far from presenting an actual case or controversy, Ford filed this lawsuit for the
`
`purpose of forum-shopping and delay.
`
`51.
`
`Ford initially filed the action under seal until the Court in Michigan ordered Ford
`
`sua sponte to file its complaint publicly. In the two and a half months since it filed suit, Ford has
`
`not served the lawsuit or taken any steps to prosecute its case. Settlement discussions have been
`
`on hold for more than a month.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Ford has misappropriated Versata and Trilogy’s
`
`Confidential Information and continues to use Trilogy’s patented and copyrighted software in
`
`violation of the ACM.
`
`53.
`
`The Confidential Information includes specific trade secrets from which Ford
`
`derives, and has derived, significant value and competitive advantage. Versata and Trilogy have
`
`treated the Confidential Information as confidential and restricted information, and have taken
`
`reasonable steps to protect such Confidential Information from unauthorized use or disclosure to
`
`maintain its secrecy. The Confidential Information was developed by Versata and Trilogy at
`
`great expense, and constitutes valuable trade secrets that give Ford a competitive advantage over
`
`others in its industry.
`
`54.
`
`Ford was—and continues to be—under an obligation not to disclose, claim,
`
`and/or use as their own, the Confidential Information disclosed by Versata and Trilogy.
`
`55.
`
`Versata and Trilogy are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Ford
`
`violated its obligations with respect to the Confidential Information by misusing and
`
`misappropriating the Confidential Information within its companies and facilities for its personal
`
`gain. In addition, Ford disclosed the Confidential Information to third parties, including, but not
`
`limited to, the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 13
`
`56.
`
`Versata and Trilogy did not become aware that Ford had violated its obligations
`
`not to misuse, misappropriate or disclose the Confidential Information until approximately
`
`February 19, 2015, when Ford filed its Complaint seeking declaratory relief for patent
`
`infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. At that time, it became clear to Versata and
`
`Trilogy that Ford had misappropriated the Confidential Information, disclosed it, and converted
`
`it to Ford’s own use, in violation of Ford’s statutory and contractual obligations. Ford’s business
`
`is such that were Ford to misuse and misappropriate Versata and Trilogy’s proprietary
`
`technology as alleged, Ford would (and Versata and Trilogy allege Ford did) benefit from its
`
`misdeeds even if they never applied for, obtained or licensed any patents based on the
`
`technology. Versata and Trilogy are informed and belief that Ford continues to run major
`
`portions of its business operations based on its misuse and misappropriation of Versata and
`
`Trilogy’s proprietary technology.
`
`57.
`
`The Registered Works are creative works of original authorship by Versata and
`
`contain a copyright notice indicating the copyright is owned by Versata.
`
`58.
`
`On October 20, 1998, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 5,825,651 (the ‘651 patent), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Configuring Systems.”
`
`Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘651 patent (a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit 4).
`
`59.
`
`On June 11, 2002, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,405,308 (the ‘308 patent), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Maintaining and Configuring
`
`Systems.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘308 patent (a true and correct
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 14
`
`60.
`
`On January 6, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,675,294 (the ‘294 patent), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Maintaining and Configuring
`
`Systems.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘294 patent (a true and correct
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit 6).
`
`61.
`
`On January 13, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,678,695 (the ‘695 patent), entitled “Master Data Maintenance Tool for Single Source Data.”
`
`Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘695 patent (a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit 7).
`
`62.
`
`On December 28, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 6,836,766 (the ‘766 patent), entitled “Rule Based Configuration Engine for a Database.”
`
`Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘766 patent (a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit 8).
`
`63.
`
`On March 6, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,188,335 (the ‘335 patent), entitled “Product Configuration Using Configuration Patterns.”
`
`Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘335 patent (a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit 9).
`
`64.
`
`On April 3, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,200,582 (the ‘582 patent), entitled “Configuration Model Consistency Checking Using Flexible
`
`Rule Space Subsets.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘582 patent (a true
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 10).
`
`65.
`
`On December 9, 2008, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 7,464,064 (the ‘064 patent), entitled “Configuration Model Consistency Checking Using
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 15
`
`Flexible Rule Space Subsets.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘064 patent
`
`(a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 11).
`
`66.
`
`On July 28, 2009, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,567,922 (the ‘922 patent), entitled “Method and System or Generating a Normalized
`
`Configuration Model.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘922 patent (a true
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 12).
`
`67.
`
`On June 15, 2010, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,739,080 (the ‘080 patent), entitled “Consolidation of Product Data Models.” Versata holds all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to the ‘080 patent (a true and correct copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit 13).
`
`68.
`
`On February 1, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,882,057 (the ‘057 patent), entitled “Complex Configuration Processing Using Configuration
`
`Sub-Models.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘057 patent (a true and
`
`correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 14).
`
`69.
`
`On May 31, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,953,779 (the ‘779 patent), entitled “Configuration Representation and Modeling Using
`
`Configuration Spaces.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘779 patent (a true
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 15).
`
`70.
`
`On February 5, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,370,408 (the ‘408 patent), entitled “Configuration Representation and Modeling Using
`
`Configuration Spaces.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘408 patent (a true
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 16).
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 16
`
`71.
`
`On May 21, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,447,784 (the ‘784 patent), entitled “Context Subsystems for System Configurations.” Versata
`
`holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘784 patent (a true and correct copy of which is
`
`attached as Exhibit 17).
`
`72.
`
`On November 19, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 8,590,011 (the ‘011 patent), entitled “Variable Domain Resource Data Security for Data
`
`Processing Systems.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘011 patent (a true
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 18).
`
`73.
`
`On August 12, 2014, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,805,825 (the ‘825 patent), entitled “Attribute Prioritized Configuration Using a Combined
`
`Configuration-Attribute Data Model.” Versata holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘825
`
`patent (a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 19).
`
`74.
`
`On information and belief, Ford makes, uses, licenses, sells, offers for sale, or
`
`imports in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States,
`
`software, including Ford’s “super configuration technology” that infringes the foregoing patents.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Versata incorporates by reference herein all of the foregoing allegations.
`
`Ford has been and is now directly infringing, and indirectly infringing by way of
`
`inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of ‘651 patent in the State of
`
`Michigan, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing software covered by one or more
`
`claims of the ‘651 patent, all to the injury of Versata.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 32
`
`FORD 1015
`
`
`
`Case 4:15-cv-00316-RC-CMC Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 17 of 32 PageID #: 17
`
`77.
`
`Ford’s acts of infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard
`
`of Versata’s patent rights, and will continue unless permanently enjoined by this Court.
`
`78.
`
`Versata has been damaged by Ford’s infringement of the ‘651 patent in an amount
`
`to be determined at trial, and has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss and injury
`
`unless Ford is permanently enjoined from infringing the ‘651 patent.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`Versata incorporates by reference herein all of the foregoing allegations.
`
`Ford has been and is now directly infringing, and indirectly infringing by way of
`
`inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of ‘308 patent in the State of
`
`Michigan, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing software covered by one or more
`
`claims of the ‘308 patent, all to the injury of Versata.
`
`81.
`
`Ford’s acts of infringement have been willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard
`
`of Versata’s patent rights, and will continue unless permanently enjoined by this Court.
`
`82.
`
`Versata has been damaged by Ford’s infringement of the ‘308 patent in an amount
`
`to be determined at trial, and has suffered and will cont