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)

Download PDF
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 (313) 234-5113 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?