Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Versata v. Ford Motor Co. — Software Patent Appeal | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

Versata v. Ford Motor Co.: Federal Circuit issues split decision across 8 patents

Versata Software, Trilogy, and Versata Development Group pursued Ford Motor Co. at the Federal Circuit over eight software and systems-configuration patents. The court issued a mixed ruling — affirming, reversing, and vacating in part — while dismissing part of the appeal, across a case spanning 905 days.

Resolution time
905days
905 days from filing to close — a substantial appellate lifecycle
Patents asserted
8
US6405308, US7200582, US7882057, US6675294, US5825651, US8805825, US7739080, US7464064 — 8 software/systems patents asserted
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed in Part
Recorded basis of termination: Appeal Dismissed in Part; verdict: affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded
Cost ruling
Not disclosed
No cost or fee ruling is reflected in the available record.
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Eight-patent Federal Circuit clash ends in fractured split ruling

Versata Software, Inc., Trilogy, Inc., and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, the appellants) brought this appeal against Ford Motor Co. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1206), filed 29 November 2023. The dispute concerns eight U.S. patents directed to methods and apparatus for maintaining and configuring systems — a software and systems-configuration technology domain. The eight asserted patents are US6405308B1, US7200582B1, US7882057B1, US6675294B1, US5825651A, US8805825B1, US7739080B1, and US7464064B1.

The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed in Part.' The docket verdict states the Federal Circuit's disposition as 'AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.' These two characterisations reflect different aspects of the court's order; the reader should consider both as stated in the record. The specific terms and scope of each portion of the ruling — which claims or patents were affirmed, which reversed, which vacated, and on what grounds — are not further detailed in the available record.

The case ran for 905 days from filing to close, consistent with the timeline of a substantively contested multi-patent Federal Circuit appeal. What drove the court's fractured disposition across eight patents — and what issues, if any, were remanded to the district court — is not disclosed in the public record available here. The partial dismissal of the appeal suggests at least one avenue of challenge did not proceed to merits review, though the specific basis for that partial dismissal is not detailed in the record.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
Case no.24-1206
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
JudgeN/A
FiledNovember 29, 2023
ClosedMay 22, 2026
Duration905 days
OutcomeAppeal Dismissed in Part
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisAppeal Dismissed in Part
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 905 days

905 days from filing to close — a substantial appellate lifecycle

Case timeline: Appeal filed NOV 29 2023 — 905 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Versata Software, Inc. v Ford Motor Co. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. NOV 29 2023 Appeal filed Pre-trial proceedings MAY 22 2026 Appeal Dismissed in Part 905 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US6405308 and 7 further patents — software systems configuration

Publication No.US6405308B1
Application No.US09/165656
Patent details
ProductMethod and apparatus for maintaining and configuring systems
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US7200582B1
Application No.US10/404891
Patent details
ProductSoftware-based system configuration and data management methods
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US7882057B1
Application No.US10/957919
Patent details
ProductSystem configuration maintenance and update apparatus
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US6675294B1
Application No.US10/132590
Patent details
ProductHierarchical configuration and access control for software systems
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US5825651A
Application No.US08/707187
Patent details
ProductComputer-implemented methods for system and pricing configuration
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US8805825B1
Application No.US11/034141
Patent details
ProductDatabase-driven system configuration and maintenance platform
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US7739080B1
Application No.US10/827078
Patent details
ProductAutomated system configuration synchronisation methods
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023

Publication No.US7464064B1
Application No.US11/695247
Patent details
ProductApparatus and methods for software system configuration management
Cited in actionNovember 29, 2023
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 6 independent)
What is claimed is: 1. A method for configuring a system comprising: providing a definition of a system, said definition comprising a plurality of graphically displayed components; defining a set of component relationships, said set of component relationships identifying classifications for said plurality of graphically displayed components; obtaining user input, said user input identifying at least one selected component from said plurality of graphically displayed components; and analyzing said at least one selected component to determine if activating said set of component relationships associated with said at…
Technical background
1. Field of the Invention This invention relates to maintaining and configuring systems. 2. Background Art A system is comprised of components. Before a system can be built the components of the system must be identified. To configure a system, a user must select the parts to include in the system. Typically, one who is knowledgeable about a system and its components defines the system. Thus, for example, an automobile salesperson assists an automobile buyer in determining the type and features of the automobile. T…
Patent family
16 family members across 8 jurisdictions (NO, BR, CA, JP, WO, EP, US, AU)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US6405308 and the Versata portfolio?

Any company developing or deploying software for system configuration, pricing management, or enterprise data maintenance — particularly in the automotive, manufacturing, or SaaS sectors — should evaluate freedom-to-operate against this eight-patent portfolio. The Federal Circuit's mixed ruling means at least some claims survived appellate review and remain enforceable, while the remand keeps further claim scope in flux. Product teams should not assume a partial reversal clears all risk.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATEDIN-PART, AND REMANDED
Source: PACER Docket, Case 24-1206, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit's disposition — affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded — reflects the court applying potentially different legal standards to distinct patent claims or issue groups across the eight asserted patents. A vacatur with remand typically indicates the lower tribunal's findings on those issues could not be sustained on the record as presented, requiring reconsideration. The recorded basis of termination additionally notes the appeal was dismissed in part, meaning at least one issue did not receive merits review at this appellate stage.

PACER case 24-1206 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Court ruling

Federal Circuit split ruling: what the mixed disposition means for both parties

Legal mechanism

A fractured appellate disposition across eight patents

The Federal Circuit's disposition — affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded — means the court reached different conclusions on different portions of the case. 'Affirmed' portions uphold the lower tribunal's findings; 'reversed' portions overturn them; 'vacated' portions nullify findings and typically send issues back for further proceedings. The recorded basis of termination additionally notes the appeal was dismissed in part, suggesting at least one issue was not reached on the merits.

Mixed appellate disposition
Patent holder outcome

Partial wins and losses for the Versata appellants

A mixed disposition means the Versata appellants prevailed on at least some issues before the Federal Circuit (reversed-in-part in their favour, if they were appealing adverse rulings below) while losing on others. The affirmed portions confirm adverse findings stand against them on those issues. Which specific patents or claims fall into each category is not disclosed in the available record. The remand suggests further proceedings remain on at least part of the case.

Partial reversal obtained
Defendant outcome

Ford retains some wins, faces remand on others

Ford Motor Co. benefits from the affirmed portions of the ruling, which preserve favourable lower-court findings on those issues. However, the reversed and vacated portions represent setbacks, and the remand means Ford faces continued litigation exposure on at least some of the eight asserted patents. The partial dismissal of the appeal limits the scope of issues Ford needed to defend on the merits at this stage.

Partial affirmance for Ford
Commercial implications

Software configuration IP enforcement remains contested

A remand following a mixed Federal Circuit ruling keeps enforcement uncertainty alive across a portfolio of eight software and systems-configuration patents. For automotive and enterprise technology companies deploying system-configuration tools, this outcome suggests the patent landscape in this domain remains actively litigated. Product teams and IP counsel monitoring freedom-to-operate in software configuration, pricing, and systems management should track the remand proceedings closely.

Active enforcement risk remains
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 24-1206 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffVersata Software, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffTrilogy, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-PlaintiffVersata Development Group, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantFord Motor Co.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDan Keith WebbAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEugene Alexis SokoloffAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJaye Quadrozzi I Esq.AttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey A. LamkenAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJennifer Elizabeth FischellAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLois AhnAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMatthew R. CarterAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael Gregory PattilloAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMonica T. KociolekAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSamuel ZuidemaAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSharoon SaleemAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSteven J. MitbyAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselThomas P. SchubertAttorneyCounsel for Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmJones & Spross, PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMitby Pacholder Johnson PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMoloLamken LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmVarnum LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmWinston Strawn LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Versata Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselFrank A. AngileriAttorneyCounsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmBrooks Kushman PCLaw FirmRepresenting Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCourt of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the software systems configuration IP space

Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Versata v. Ford Federal Circuit appeal — covering portfolio activity, technology trends, and competitive white space in software systems configuration.

Patent portfolio

Versata/Trilogy's software configuration patent filing history

Versata Software and Trilogy have assembled a multi-patent portfolio in software systems configuration dating from the late 1990s. Tracking the continuation and divisional filing activity around the eight asserted patents — and any newer applications claiming priority to these families — reveals whether the portfolio is being actively extended or is primarily a legacy enforcement asset. R&D and IP teams in adjacent spaces should monitor assignee-level filing activity.

Portfolio extension risk
Technology landscape

Filing trends in enterprise software configuration and maintenance

The domain of methods and apparatus for maintaining and configuring software systems has seen significant evolution — from on-premise enterprise tools to cloud-native configuration management platforms (e.g., infrastructure-as-code, GitOps, and automotive over-the-air update systems). Analysing recent patent filings in this space reveals where innovation is concentrated and which claim approaches are gaining or losing traction post-Alice.

Cloud config filing trends
Competitive IP posture

Ford Motor Co.'s software and systems IP portfolio

Ford's defence of this eight-patent action at the Federal Circuit signals active investment in software IP litigation capacity. Examining Ford's own patent filings in vehicle software configuration, connected car platforms, and systems management reveals the depth of its defensive portfolio — and whether it is building cross-licensing leverage in domains overlapping with the Versata assertions.

Ford software IP position
White space opportunity

Adjacent white space: automotive software OTA and configuration

The Versata patents target legacy system-configuration paradigms. Adjacent white space exists in automotive OTA (over-the-air) software update orchestration, cloud-based vehicle configuration management, and AI-driven system maintenance — areas where the asserted patent claims are unlikely to read directly but where differentiated filing strategies can establish defensive and offensive positions for the next generation of automotive software platforms.

OTA configuration white space
Related litigation

Similar Federal Circuit software patent infringement appeals

Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving software systems configuration and enterprise software patents — comparable multi-patent infringement actions at the appellate level with mixed or split dispositions.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Versata Software, Inc. patent enforcement history, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case history, Versata Software, Inc.'s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Versata v. SAP Federal CircuitSoftware config patent appealsMixed Fed Circuit dispositionsLegacy software § 101 appeals
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the software systems IP landscape

A mixed Federal Circuit ruling across eight patents keeps litigation risk alive and signals the complexity of asserting legacy software portfolios against automotive tech integrators.

Multi-patent software portfolios generate fractured appellate outcomes

When eight patents are litigated simultaneously, the probability of a clean, single-direction appellate ruling is low. Companies deploying system-configuration or enterprise software tools should anticipate that each patent in a portfolio may face a different fate — affirmed, reversed, or vacated — requiring claim-by-claim FTO analysis rather than a portfolio-level risk assessment.

Remand means the litigation clock has not stopped for Ford

A remand following a Federal Circuit vacatur typically returns issues to the district court for further proceedings. Ford and similarly situated automotive technology integrators should expect continued exposure on the vacated and reversed issues. Monitoring the remand docket is essential for any company tracking enforcement activity in this software configuration space.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis of this Federal Circuit software patent appeal, including remand risk signals and portfolio enforcement implications for the automotive and enterprise tech sectors.
Which patents were reversed?Remand scope analysisPortfolio enforcement risk
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Versata v Ford — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track the Versata v. Ford remand and portfolio risk in real time

With a Federal Circuit remand active, the Versata eight-patent portfolio remains a live enforcement risk. Use PatSnap Eureka to monitor remand docket developments, run claim-level FTO, and set alerts on any continuation filings.

Disclaimer

This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.

Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.