Versata Software, Inc., et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 215

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' #178 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Counterclaims. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-10628
(consolidated with Case No. 15-11624)
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.
Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COUNTERCLAIMS (ECF #178)
On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) filed an answer
to Defendants’ First Amended Counterclaims. (See ECF #166.) With its answer,
Ford included ten counterclaims that it had not previously asserted (“Ford’s
Counterclaims”). (See id.) Versata has now moved to strike or dismiss Ford’s
Counterclaims (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #178.)
The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on January 6, 2016. For
the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as
follows:
(1)

With respect to counts 1-9 of Ford’s Counterclaims, which relate to

claims of patent invalidity and breach of contract, the Court exercises its discretion
to treat these counts as a motion for leave to amend Ford’s Amended Complaint

1

(ECF #6) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Court GRANTS
that motion. Ford shall file a Second Amended Complaint that includes these
counts by no later than January 20, 2017.
(2)

With respect to count 10 of Ford’s Counterclaims, which relates to

alleged inequitable conduct, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. However,
when Ford files its forthcoming Second Amended Complaint, it may attempt to replead its inequitable conduct claim by pleading additional specific facts that
address the Court’s concerns raised at the hearing. If Defendants believe that
Ford’s re-pleaded count for inequitable conduct still fails to state a claim, they may
move to dismiss the claim.
(3)

In all other respects, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2017

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 9, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2