`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 15-10628-MFL-EAS
`(Consolidated with
`
`
`Case No. 15-11624-MFL-EAS)
`Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT,
`AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES,
`DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS,
`AND RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 2 of 56 Pg ID 1339
`
`ANSWER
`
`
`
`Defendants Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy
`
`Development Group, Inc., and Trilogy, Inc. (collectively, “Versata”) by their
`
`attorneys, Steven J. Mitby of the Houston, Texas law firm of AHMAD,
`
`ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING, P.C., and Rodger D. Young
`
`of the Farmington Hills, Michigan law firm of YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, hereby
`
`answer the Complaint of Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (“Ford”):
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Ford Motor Company Has Misappropriated Versata’s Trade Secrets
`and Infringed Versata’s Patents
`Ford Motor Company is one of the biggest automotive companies in the
`
`
`
`world. Ford’s success depends on complex software that works behind the scenes
`
`to enable Ford to design, develop, manufacture, distribute, market, and sell vehicles
`
`on four continents. The backbone of this global system is Versata’s Automotive
`
`Configuration Management (ACM), a software program that Versata developed in
`
`Austin, Texas at a cost of hundreds of thousands of person-hours and millions of
`
`dollars.
`
`
`
`Versata’s ACM software enables Ford to “configure” vehicles from billions
`
`of potential combinations of parts, features, and options. By solving the complex
`
`mathematical, logical, and logistical problems involved in designing and configuring
`
`vehicles, ACM ensures that every Ford vehicle consists of compatible parts and
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 3 of 56 Pg ID 1340
`
`features that Ford can manufacture. In addition, the software ensures that each Ford
`
`vehicle configuration complies with Ford’s sales, marketing, and other business
`
`requirements. In short, ACM ensures that the automotive designs Ford develops are
`
`for vehicles that Ford can build, manufacture, and sell.
`
`Ford began using Versata’s automotive configuration technology in October
`
`1998 after experimenting unsuccessfully with homegrown solutions. Ford tried, but
`
`ultimately failed, to develop software that was sophisticated, accurate, and efficient
`
`enough to meet its configuration needs. By the late 1990s, these needs had become
`
`critical because Ford had lost hundreds of millions of dollars because of
`
`configuration errors. Ford incurred these costs primarily because its existing
`
`configuration process – which depended heavily on large teams of engineers,
`
`involved extensive manual inputs, and was subject to significant risk of human error
`
`– caused multi-million dollar vehicle recalls and manufacturing delays.
`
`Between October 1998 and January 2015, Versata became Ford’s chief
`
`provider of configuration software. Ford integrated ACM throughout its business
`
`and came to depend on Versata to run its global operations. Because ACM provides
`
`the configuration models that determine the products Ford can design and build,
`
`Ford has integrated ACM with its global design, development, finance, marketing,
`
`dealer ordering, and retail website software. In short, Ford’s global information
`
`technology infrastructure was totally dependent on – and could not function without
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 4 of 56 Pg ID 1341
`
`– ACM. Because of this dependence, Ford could not design, manufacture, or sell a
`
`single vehicle without Versata’s technologies.
`
`
`
`In or before 2011, Ford management became concerned about the extent of
`
`Ford’s dependence on ACM and did not want to pay the relatively modest price
`
`increases that Versata requested as part of license renewals. Even though Ford was
`
`receiving hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars in benefits from
`
`Versata software, Ford’s management decided it wanted to break ties with Versata.
`
`Ford vice president Elena Ford (who is also an influential shareholder within the
`
`company) expressed her distaste for Versata and told a colleague that Ford would
`
`not do business with Versata because Versata had allegedly “put Ford over a barrel.”
`
`But Ford did not have any software that it could use to replace ACM or reduce its
`
`need for Versata’s technologies. So, based on this pressure from upper management,
`
`Ford launched a program called “Total Configuration Management” or “TCM” to
`
`replicate the functionality of ACM and provide a complete replacement for ACM
`
`software.
`
`
`
`Ford now claims that TCM (which Ford later renamed “Product Definition
`
`and Offer” or “PDO”) uses entirely different technologies from ACM, claiming that
`
`the company implemented a “Chinese wall” to protect Versata trade secrets and
`
`emphasizing the fact that Ford obtained a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,812,375) on
`
`some of the technology used in this software. However, the functionality of the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 5 of 56 Pg ID 1342
`
`TCM software and the development process Ford used to create it refutes this
`
`assertion. Even without any fact discovery, it is evident that Ford incorporated
`
`Versata’s patented technologies and trade secrets into TCM and used these
`
`technologies to replace ACM.
`
`
`
`First, far from employing a “Chinese wall,” Ford used at least twenty-six
`
`people – and possibly more – who had worked on or had access to Versata’s
`
`configuration technologies to develop TCM. The head of this development project
`
`was Mike Sullivan, the Ford executive who had overseen Ford’s implementation and
`
`integration of ACM since at least 2000. Indeed, Sullivan had unrestricted access to
`
`ACM for more than a decade before he was assigned to lead the TCM development
`
`process and Sullivan continued to work on ACM simultaneously with TCM. The
`
`other individuals on both sides of Ford’s “Chinese wall” include Bryan Goodman,
`
`Gintaras Puskorius, Kurt Reinke, Sanjay Sisale, Ram Pillarisetty, Garghi Shah,
`
`David Wierzbicki, Sunil Gajula, Manisha Tambe, Darlene Coomer, Jian Lin, Fred
`
`Wilkinson, Linda Wu, Rachel Sims, Chris Andrews, Martin Pipoly, Yakov Fradkin,
`
`Jim Beardslee, Ravi Kundoor, Ganesh Alla, Erin Jasso, Aaron Bush, Rachel Smith,
`
`Sai Viswanatha, and Colin Shury. Versata expects to identify even more individuals
`
`through discovery.
`
`Ford’s deliberate use of people who had significant knowledge of and
`
`exposure to ACM confidential information was not a coincidence: These individuals
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 6 of 56 Pg ID 1343
`
`could not simply “forget” or “separate” what they knew about ACM from their work
`
`on the TCM replacement software for ACM – especially when Ford was under
`
`pressure to develop replacement software that would eliminate Ford’s dependence
`
`on Versata.
`
`
`
`Second, Ford’s public patent filings – which purport to describe the
`
`technologies used in TCM – actually demonstrate that Ford incorporated numerous
`
`Versata technologies into TCM. These patent filings include U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,812,375 and U.S. Patent Publication No. US20140279602.
`
`Even if Ford added additional elements to its patent claims in order to secure
`
`Patent Office approval (a claim which is, at best, open to question), the fundamental
`
`basis of both of these patent filings is technology that Ford obtained and copied from
`
`Versata. Not surprisingly, the named inventors on these Ford patent filings include
`
`at least eight people who gained knowledge of Versata configuration technologies
`
`such as Bryan Goodman, Gintaras Puskorius, Jian Lin, Martin Pipoly, Yakov
`
`Fradkin, Ravi Kundoor, Ganesh Alla, and Jim Beardslee.
`
`
`
`Third, TCM functions as a complete replacement for ACM and was integrated
`
`with downstream design, development, finance, marketing, dealer ordering, and
`
`retail website systems without any change to those systems. The fact that Ford was
`
`able to remove ACM and replace it with TCM without changing any downstream
`
`systems highlights the overlap between TCM and ACM software.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 7 of 56 Pg ID 1344
`
`Fourth, at the end of 2014, Ford made several desperate attempts to renew its
`
`ACM license by subterfuge, signaling that Ford was not ready to stop using ACM
`
`when its license expired in January 2015. For example, in October 2014, Ford sent
`
`an unsolicited $8.45 million check to Versata’s corporate offices in Texas for a one-
`
`year ACM license renewal, even though Versata had rejected this proposal just days
`
`earlier. Ford also sent two unsolicited purchase orders to Versata’s corporate offices
`
`based on this same proposal that Versata had rejected.
`
`These tactics – apparently intended to prompt someone at Versata to create a
`
`binding contract by cashing the check or executing one of the purchase orders –
`
`show that Ford was not prepared to terminate its license to ACM at the beginning of
`
`2015. Significantly, Ford also refused to allow Versata to review its TCM software
`
`or documentation as part of a contract audit process, stonewalling Versata’s efforts
`
`to determine the full extent to which TCM incorporates its trade secrets and patented
`
`technologies.
`
`For these reasons, and as further stated below, it is apparent that Ford is liable
`
`for breaching its software license agreements with Versata, misappropriating
`
`Versata’s trade secrets, and infringing Versata’s patents.
`
` PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 8 of 56 Pg ID 1345
`
`them.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Versata admits that Trilogy Development Group, Inc.’s principal place
`
`of business is in Austin, TX. Versata denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-5 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`7.
`
`Admitted that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 2201; otherwise denied.
`
`8.
`
`Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`9.
`
`Denied.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`10. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-9 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 9 of 56 Pg ID 1346
`
`11. The term “Original Equipment Manufacturer” is undefined; Versata
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`12. Versata admits
`
`that Ford sells vehicles with many different
`
`configurations. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and
`
`on that basis denies them.
`
`13. Admitted.
`
`14. Admitted to the extent that these allegations are not intended to
`
`preclude that billions of configurations may be possible for a vehicle line; otherwise
`
`denied.
`
`15. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`16. Versata admits that Ford licensed software from Versata in October
`
`1998; otherwise denied.
`
`17. Versata admits that it entered into a Contract Services Agreement
`
`(“CSA”) with Ford in 1998. For all other allegations herein, lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in
`
`this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 10 of 56 Pg ID 1347
`
`18. Versata admits that the CSA speaks for itself. Versata denies any
`
`allegation that is inconsistent with the terms of the CSA. Versata denies the
`
`remaining allegations.
`
`19. Denied.
`
`20. Versata admits that Ford’s vehicle offerings required high levels of data
`
`volumes and complexity; otherwise denied.
`
`21. Denied.
`
`22. Versata admits that it entered into a Master Subscription and Services
`
`Agreement (“MSSA”) with Ford in 2004 and that the MSSA speaks for itself.
`
`Versata denies any allegation that is inconsistent with the terms of the MSSA.
`
`Versata denies the remaining allegations.
`
`23. Versata admits that the MSSA speaks for itself. Versata denies any
`
`allegation that is inconsistent with the terms of the MSSA. Versata denies the
`
`remaining allegations.
`
`24. Denied.
`
`25. Denied.
`
`26. Denied.
`
`27. Versata admits that it entered into an addendum to the original software
`
`license. Otherwise, denied.
`
`28. Versata admits that Ford paid Versata pursuant to the addendum.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 11 of 56 Pg ID 1348
`
`Otherwise denied.
`
`29. Versata admits that it sent a letter to Ford dated October 7, 2014, and
`
`that the letter speaks for itself; otherwise denied.
`
`30. Versata admits that it sent a letter to Ford dated November 13, 2014,
`
`and that the letter speaks for itself; otherwise denied.
`
`31. Denied.
`
`32. Denied
`
`33. Denied.
`
`34. Denied.
`
`35. Versata admits that a Ford employee stated orally that it planned to
`
`replace ACM software. Otherwise, denied.
`
`36. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`37. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`38. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 12 of 56 Pg ID 1349
`
`39. Denied.
`
`40. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`41. Denied.
`
`42. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`43. Versata admits that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(USPTO) issued Patent No. 8,812,375 in August 2014; otherwise denied.
`
`44. Denied.
`
`45. Denied.
`
`46. Denied.
`
`47. Denied.
`
`48. Denied.
`
`49. Denied.
`
`50. Denied.
`
`51. Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 13 of 56 Pg ID 1350
`
`52. Denied.
`
`53. Denied.
`
`54. Versata admits that it sent a letter to Ford dated October 7, 2014, and
`
`that the letter speaks for itself; otherwise denied.
`
`55. Versata admits that some of its representatives met with Ford
`
`representatives in Dearborn on December 19, 2014; otherwise denied.
`
`56. Versata admits that it has notified Ford of its intent to exercise its on-
`
`premises audit rights pursuant to the MSSA. Otherwise denied.
`
`57. Versata admits that it requested interviews with Ford personnel
`
`pursuant to its on-premises audit rights under the MSSA. Otherwise denied.
`
`58. Versata admits that it holds the following patents: U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,825,651 (the ‘651 Patent) (incorrectly identified in Ford’s Complaint as the “‘561
`
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,405,308 (the ‘308 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,675,294
`
`(the ‘294 Patent). Versata also admits that the claims of these patents cover aspects
`
`of ACM. Otherwise, denied.
`
`59. Versata’s October 7, 2014 letter speaks for itself. Otherwise, denied.
`
`60. The context for the allegations in this are paragraph is vague.
`
`Accordingly, Versata lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 14 of 56 Pg ID 1351
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Ford Does Not Infringe The ‘651 Patent)
`
`61. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-60 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`62. Denied.
`
`63. Denied.
`
`64. Denied.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Ford Does Not Infringe The ‘308 Patent)
`
`65. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-64 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`66. Denied.
`
`67. Denied.
`
`68. Denied.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Ford Does Not Infringe The ‘294 Patent)
`
`69. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-68 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`70. Denied.
`
`71. Denied.
`
`72. Denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 15 of 56 Pg ID 1352
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Ford Owns, Or Is Licensed To Reproduce,
`Software Versata Developed Pursuant to the 1998 Contract Services
`Agreement)
`
`73. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-72 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`74. Denied.
`
`75. Versata admits that Versata and Ford entered into the CSA in October
`
`1998 and that the CSA speaks for itself; otherwise denied.
`
`76. Denied.
`
`77. Denied.
`
`78. Denied.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Ford Owns, Or Is Licensed To Reproduce,
`Software Versata Developed Pursuant to the 2004 Master Subscription and
`Services Agreement)
`
`79. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-78 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`80. Denied.
`
`81. Versata admits that Versata and Ford entered into the MSSA in
`
`December 2004 and that the MSSA speaks for itself; otherwise denied.
`
`82. Denied.
`
`83. Denied.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 16 of 56 Pg ID 1353
`
`84. Denied.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Ford Did Not Misappropriate Defendants’
`Trade Secrets)
`
`85. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-84 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`86. Denied.
`
`87. Denied.
`
`88. Denied.
`
`89. Denied.
`
`90. Denied.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Declaratory Judgment That Defendants Are Not Permitted To Inspect Ford’s
`TCM Software or Interview Ford’s TCM Developers Pursuant To The Audit
`Provisions Of The 2004 MSSA)
`
`91. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-90 of
`
`its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`92. Denied.
`
`93. Versata admits that it requested to interview Ford personnel, otherwise
`
`denied.
`
`94. Denied.
`
`95. Denied.
`
`96. Denied.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 17 of 56 Pg ID 1354
`
`97. Denied.
`
`98. Denied.
`
`99. Versata admits
`
`that Versata
`
`representatives met with Ford
`
`representatives in Dearborn on December 19, 2014; otherwise denied.
`
`100. Denied.
`
`101. Denied.
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Breach of Contract)
`
`102. Versata incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-101
`
`of its Answer, and to the extent an answer is required, denied.
`
`103. Denied.
`
`104. Denied.
`
`105. Denied.
`
`106. Denied.
`
`107. Denied.
`
`108. Denied.
`
`109. Denied.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`WHEREFORE, the Versata Defendants deny the allegations in the Prayer for
`
`Relief and any other allegations of the Complaint not specifically responded to
`
`herein, and respectfully pray for the following relief:
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 18 of 56 Pg ID 1355
`
`A.
`
`That the Court deny Ford’s request for declaratory judgment, and
`
`otherwise dismiss Ford’s Complaint with prejudice.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`That the Court provide for trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
`
`That the Court award Versata its attorney’s fees and costs in connection
`
`with this action.
`
`D.
`
`That the Court award such other and further relief in law or in equity to
`
`which Versata may be justly entitled.
`
`DATED: Oct. 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Rodger D. Young
`Rodger D. Young (P22652)
`Jason D. Killips (P67883)
`27725 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`248.353.8620
`efiling@youngpc.com
`P22652
`
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI & MENSING, P.C
`
`
`
` /s/ Steven J. Mitby
`
`Steven J. Mitby
` 1221 McKinney, Suite 3460
`
`Houston, Texas 77010
` 713.655.1101
`
`smitby@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants, Versata Software,
`Inc., F/K/A Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy
`Development Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 19 of 56 Pg ID 1356
`
`AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`Ford’s claims for breach of contract are precluded by its ratification of
`
`Versata’s actions.
`
`2.
`
`Ford’s claims for breach of contract are precluded because Ford and
`
`Versata entered into a novation and accord.
`
`3.
`
`Ford’s claims for breach of contract are precluded because of Ford’s
`
`waiver.
`
`4.
`
`All of Ford’s claims are barred because Ford has failed to state a claim
`
`for which relief can be granted.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`All of Ford’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`Ford’s claims for breach of contract are barred because, even if it could
`
`show Versata breached the MSSA, Ford materially breached the MSSA first.
`
`7.
`
`Ford’s claims for breach of contract are barred by estoppel and/or
`
`consent.
`
`YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Rodger D. Young
`Rodger D. Young (P22652)
`Jason D. Killips (P67883)
`27725 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`248.353.8620
`efiling@youngpc.com
`P22652
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 20 of 56 Pg ID 1357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI & MENSING, P.C
`
`
`
` /s/ Steven J. Mitby
`
`Steven J. Mitby
` 1221 McKinney, Suite 3460
`
`Houston, Texas 77010
` 713.655.1101
`
`smitby@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants, Versata Software,
`Inc., F/K/A Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy
`Development Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc.
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 21 of 56 Pg ID 1358
`
`VERSATA PARTIES’ COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST FORD
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`2.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 28 U.S.C.
`
`1391(b) and (c).
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
` These counterclaims are asserted by Defendants against Plaintiff Ford
`
`Motor Company.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Ford licenses Versata’s configuration software for 17 years
`
`5.
`
`Versata realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations
`
`in the foregoing paragraphs, including the Preliminary Statement contained in its
`
`Answer.
`
`6.
`
`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 key areas of innovation is automotive configuration
`
`technologies, a field in which Versata holds multiple patents.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 22 of 56 Pg ID 1359
`
`7.
`
`Versata and its subsidiaries have developed software comprised of
`
`technical data, formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, and other patented and
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`From October 1998 until January 2015, Ford licensed Versata’s
`
`configuration technology – including ACM – pursuant to two master agreements
`
`that included multiple schedules and addenda.
`
`9.
`
`In 1998, Ford signed a contract services software licensing agreement
`
`with Versata (the “CSA”), which permitted Ford to license Versata’s automotive
`
`configuration software in return for an annual licensing fee. A true and correct copy
`
`of the CSA is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`10. The CSA specified that, except for certain custom portions to which
`
`Ford was specifically assigned ownership in written assignment orders, Versata
`
`“retain[ed] all rights, title and interest in and to the software and/or related
`
`documentation provided to [Ford] by [Versata], including, without limitation, the
`
`Non-Custom Elements … and all copyright, trade secret and other rights relating
`
`thereto.” (Ex. 1 at 2).
`
`11. Ford also acknowledged in the CSA that “the ‘Non-Custom Elements’
`
`include[d] … the know-how, technique, concepts, methods, coding, designs,
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 23 of 56 Pg ID 1360
`
`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).
`
`12. 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).
`
`13.
`
`In 2004, Ford and Versata 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
`
`Versata, the ACM technology was developed by Versata, which then licensed this
`
`propriety technology to Ford.
`
`14.
`
`In December 2004, Ford and Versata entered into a Master Subscription
`
`and Services Agreement (“MSSA”), governing Ford’s licensing of the Versata’s
`
`proprietary ACM technology. A true and correct copy of the MSSA is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`15. Like the CSA, the MSSA granted Ford a license to use Versata’s
`
`proprietary ACM software. It did not, however, grant Ford any ownership rights in
`
`this software or the underlying technology. While Ford owned the rights to certain
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 24 of 56 Pg ID 1361
`
`minor customizations of the software, it did not own the underlying ACM
`
`technology. Versata’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 Versata’s ACM software.
`
`16. The MSSA made plain that Versata retained all rights to its proprietary
`
`ACM technology.
`
`17. 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 [Versata] pursuant to Section 1.8, or [Versata]
`
`Materials provided to Ford.” (Ex. 2 at 5).
`
`18. 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 [Versata] Confidential
`
`Information to Ford or to any patent, copyright, trademark, or trade secret embodied
`
`therein, or to grant any other right, title, or ownership interest to the [Versata]
`
`Confidential Information.” (Ex. 2 at 5).
`
`19. The MSSA also contained a number of additional safeguards to protect
`
`Versata’s Confidential Information.
`
`
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 25 of 56 Pg ID 1362
`
`20. 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 [Versata].” Ford further agreed “to restrict access to [Versata’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).
`
`21. Ford agreed in Section 1.7 that “[i]n no event shall Ford disassemble,
`
`decompile, or reverse engineer [Versata’s] Software or Confidential Information …
`
`or permit others to do so.” (Ex. 2 at 2).
`
`22. Ford also agreed that “Ford may use [Versata’s] Confidential
`
`Information solely in connection with the Software and pursuant to the terms of this
`
`Agreement.” (Ex. 2 at 2).
`
`23.
`
`In order to ensure that Ford would comply with the restrictions on its
`
`use of Versata’s Confidential Information, Versata negotiated the right to conduct
`
`verification audits at Ford.
`
`24. Under Section 3.5 of the MSSA, Ford agreed that “[Versata] may, upon
`
`thirty (30) days prior written notice, enter Ford’s premises to verify Ford’s
`
`compliance with the provisions of this Agreement at [Versata]’s expense.” (Ex. 2 at
`
`4).
`
`
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 56
`
`FORD 1016
`
`
`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 59 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 26 of 56 Pg ID 1363
`
`25. Ford also agreed in Section 12 (“Ford Obligations”) that “Ford [would]
`
`upon reasonable request, reasonably make available to [Versata] certain of its
`
`facilities, computer resources, software programs, networks, personnel, and business
`
`information as are required to perform any Work, service, or other obligation
`
`hereunder.” (Ex. 2 at 7).
`
`26. Finally, the MSSA provides 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 Versata. (Ex. 2 at 1.3).
`
`27. Between 1998 and 2014, Versata and its corporate parent, Trilogy,
`
`provided configuration software, technical documentation, and limited amounts of
`
`source code to Ford.
`
`28. Through this process, Versata 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.
`
`B.
`
`Ford becomes dependent on Versata’s technology
`29. Versata’s ACM proved immensely valuable to Ford.