Versata Software, Inc., et al v. Ford Motor Company
Filing
275
ORDER on Motion Hearing. 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 ON MOTION HEARING
On March 31, 2017, the Court held a hearing on three pending motions:
Versata’s motion to dismiss Ford’s inequitable conduct claim (ECF
#245);
Ford’s motion to dismiss Versata’s counterclaims under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) (ECF #253); and
Ford’s motion to exclude Versata’s new trade secret, copyright, and
patent infringement contentions (ECF #259).
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
Versata’s motion to dismiss Ford’s inequitable conduct claim (ECF
#245) is GRANTED, and Ford’s inequitable conduct claim is
DISMISSED;
1
Ford’s motion to dismiss Versata’s counterclaims under the DMCA
(ECF #253) is GRANTED, and those counterclaims are DISMISSED.
However, the Court will allow Versata to file an amended counterclaim
under Section 1202 (only) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. §1202). The
amended counterclaim under Section 1202 should address the concerns
that the Court expressed on the record with respect to the counterclaim
as originally pleaded. Versata shall file such an amended counterclaim
under Section 1202 by no later than seven (7) days from the date of this
Order. Ford shall respond to the amended counterclaim within ten (10)
days of its filing.
Ford’s motion to exclude Versata’s new trade secret, copyright, and
patent infringement contentions (ECF #259) is DENIED. However,
the Court will extend all of the dates on the current scheduling order in
order to accommodate the addition of the new contentions into this
action. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer promptly in an
effort to agree upon extensions of the current dates, and if an agreement
is reached, the parties shall submit a proposed stipulated scheduling
order to the Court. If the parties cannot agree, Ford shall file a motion
to extend the dates in which Ford presents its proposed schedule and
the reasons supporting that schedule, and Versata shall respond to the
2
motion with its proposed schedule and supporting reasons. Ford’s
motion, if necessary, shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the entry
of this order, and Versata’s response to the motion shall be filed within
seven (7) days of the filing of the motion by Ford.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 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 April 3, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
3
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?