CAFC-DCTSeptember 10, 2026·24-1140, 24-1206, 24-1234·Affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. The court vacated the zero-dollar trade secret damages judgment and remanded for a new damages trial, reversed the reduction of contract damages and reinstated the $82.26 million jury award, and affirmed denial of Ford’s JMOL on trade secret liability.
Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Company
District Court
Holding
The Federal Circuit held that the district court legally erred by categorically limiting Versata to a licensing-history reasonable royalty and precluding unjust-enrichment damages for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and MUTSA. It also held that the breach-of-contract damages award was supported by sufficient evidence and that Ford was not entitled to JMOL on trade secret liability.
Why It Matters
Although not a patent-merits decision, the precedential ruling is a useful Federal Circuit reminder that district courts cannot use prior licensing history to categorically bar statutory unjust-enrichment damages theories where trade secret claims travel with patent-related jurisdiction.
Full Summary
Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Company
The Federal Circuit held that the district court legally erred by categorically limiting Versata to a licensing-history reasonable royalty and precluding unjust-enrichment damages for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and MUTSA. It also held that the breach-of-contract damages award was supported by sufficient evidence and that Ford was not entitled to JMOL on trade secret liability.
Although not a patent-merits decision, the precedential ruling is a useful Federal Circuit reminder that district courts cannot use prior licensing history to categorically bar statutory unjust-enrichment damages theories where trade secret claims travel with patent-related jurisdiction.
Affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. The court vacated the zero-dollar trade secret damages judgment and remanded for a new damages trial, reversed the reduction of contract damages and reinstated the $82.26 million jury award, and affirmed denial of Ford’s JMOL on trade secret liability.
The district court had excluded Versata’s trade secret damages theories except for a reasonable royalty tied to the parties’ licensing history, then reduced the jury’s $22.386 million trade secret award to zero.
The Federal Circuit held that both the DTSA and MUTSA expressly permit unjust-enrichment damages, and Sixth Circuit precedent did not require damages to be measured only by the parties’ license history.
The court remanded for a new trade secret damages trial and directed the district court to reconsider the reasonable-royalty models it previously excluded because they included value-to-Ford components.
On contract damages, the court reinstated the $82.26 million jury award because the record contained a reasonable evidentiary path based on annual license figures and the 7.5-year damages period.
On Ford’s cross-appeal, the court rejected a heightened requirement that Versata prove Ford knew the specific elements of each combination trade secret; the evidence supported liability under the DTSA and MUTSA.
damages remand standing / jurisdiction precedential
damages remand standing / jurisdiction precedential
damages remand precedential
Key Points
The district court had excluded Versata’s trade secret damages theories except for a reasonable royalty tied to the parties’ licensing history, then reduced the jury’s $22.386 million trade secret award to zero.
The Federal Circuit held that both the DTSA and MUTSA expressly permit unjust-enrichment damages, and Sixth Circuit precedent did not require damages to be measured only by the parties’ license history.
The court remanded for a new trade secret damages trial and directed the district court to reconsider the reasonable-royalty models it previously excluded because they included value-to-Ford components.
On contract damages, the court reinstated the $82.26 million jury award because the record contained a reasonable evidentiary path based on annual license figures and the 7.5-year damages period.
On Ford’s cross-appeal, the court rejected a heightened requirement that Versata prove Ford knew the specific elements of each combination trade secret; the evidence supported liability under the DTSA and MUTSA.
We use essential cookies to run the site, and analytics and Google Ads advertising cookies only if you allow them. We use cookies strictly necessary to run the site (sign-in, payments). With your consent we also use analytics, and Google Ads advertising cookies that record which ad brought you here and let us show our ads to past visitors. You can accept or decline these non-essential cookies. See our Privacy & Cookie Policy.