PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bernard Crawford, Responsible Partner Gabrielle Moss, Lead Associate
FROM: Aaron Liu, Working Associate
DATE: September 2023
RE: Antitrust Considerations — Meridian Code Technologies, Inc. Market Position in Automotive Embedded RTOS Licensing; Potential Leverage for Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. in MESLSA Negotiations
Matter No.: C&H Matter No. 1007-00008
Client: Vantage Mobility Systems Corp.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
This memorandum analyzes whether Meridian Code Technologies, Inc. ("MeridianCode" or "MCT"), licensor under the Master Embedded Software License and Services Agreement dated June 21, 2022 (the "MESLSA"), occupies a market position in the automotive embedded real-time operating system ("RTOS") sector that may implicate federal antitrust law — specifically, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14 — or Michigan antitrust law under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act ("MARA"), MCL §§ 445.771 et seq. The memorandum is prepared at the request of Bernard Crawford and Gabrielle Moss in connection with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's ongoing representation of Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS" or the "Company") in the MESLSA-related disputes and restructuring negotiations.
The memorandum evaluates whether specific MESLSA provisions — particularly Section 7.2 (Derivative Works joint ownership and perpetual royalty-free license-back to MeridianCode), Section 4.3 (Use-It-or-Lose-It clause requiring integration testing on at least two platforms within eighteen months), Section 9.1 (fee forfeiture of all prepaid amounts upon early termination before the twenty-four-month anniversary), and Section 12.6 (Change of Control consent requirement) — could constitute anticompetitive conduct, unlawful tying, or an abuse of market power under the applicable antitrust frameworks. The analysis considers each provision individually and, critically, in combination, as the cumulative effect of these provisions on VMS's competitive freedom and switching costs is more significant than any single clause viewed in isolation.
The memorandum further assesses whether antitrust arguments provide VMS with viable negotiation leverage in the ongoing dormancy extension and fee restructuring discussions with MeridianCode's outside counsel, Redstone Whitaker LLP (Alan M. Briscoe, lead partner). VMS is currently seeking, among other things, a dormancy extension beyond the contractual twelve-month cap, a fee credit for Year 2 maintenance, a scope reduction from five designated platforms to two, a royalty cap reduction, and a carve-out establishing sole VMS ownership of derivative works DW-001, DW-002, and DW-003.
Bottom-line conclusion: While MeridianCode holds a significant position in the automotive embedded RTOS market, the evidence on the current record does not clearly support a standalone antitrust claim that would survive dispositive motion in federal court or prevail in arbitration. However, certain provisions — particularly the derivative works license-back under Section 7.2 and the Use-It-or-Lose-It clause under Section 4.3, viewed in combination with the fee forfeiture and change-of-control consent provisions — present colorable arguments under both federal and Michigan antitrust law that may serve as useful negotiation leverage. This leverage is especially potent if MeridianCode refuses to negotiate the dormancy extension and fee restructuring in good faith, as the reputational and disclosure risks associated with antitrust allegations are material to a publicly traded company. I recommend a measured approach: preserve antitrust rights in correspondence, deploy the arguments strategically in negotiations, and reserve formal assertion for escalation if warranted by the trajectory of discussions.
II. Background and Scope of Analysis
A. The MESLSA and Project Argonaut
On June 21, 2022, VMS (as licensee) and MeridianCode (as licensor) executed the MESLSA, pursuant to which MeridianCode granted VMS a license to use, integrate, and deploy the ATLAS-RT™ embedded real-time operating system, Version 4.2, in connection with VMS's Project Argonaut — an initiative to develop advanced adaptive vehicle platforms incorporating next-generation embedded control systems. The ATLAS-RT™ software has subsequently been updated to Version 4.2.3 under the terms of the MESLSA's maintenance provisions.
The total deal value of the MESLSA is approximately $20,000,000, structured across four principal fee components:
• Upfront License Fee: $8,000,000, paid in full at closing on June 21, 2022.
• Annual Maintenance and Support Fees: $2,400,000 per year over the five-year term, totaling $12,000,000 over the full contract period.
• Integration Services Fees: $3,200,000, payable across five defined integration milestones tied to the progression of Project Argonaut.
• Per-Unit Runtime Royalties: $80.00 per unit deployed, subject to an aggregate cap of $4,000,000 over the five-year license term, corresponding to a maximum of 50,000 units.
Under the MESLSA, the ATLAS-RT™ license was designated for integration into up to five vehicle platform configurations under the Project Argonaut program, internally designated Argonaut-A through Argonaut-E. The license grants VMS worldwide territorial rights, subject to the use restrictions, platform designations, and other terms set forth in the agreement.
Project Argonaut was rescoped by the VMS Board of Directors pursuant to a Board resolution dated March 14, 2023. The rescoping reduced the active scope of the program from five designated platforms to two — Argonaut-A and Argonaut-C only. This decision was driven by two converging factors: (i) ongoing semiconductor supply-chain disruptions that delayed critical hardware components for the Argonaut-B, Argonaut-D, and Argonaut-E platforms, and (ii) a portfolio-wide capital expenditure reduction directive issued by Kestrel Capital Partners, LP ("Ashgrove Equity Partners"), VMS's private equity sponsor, in response to broader macroeconomic conditions and tightening credit markets.
Following the Board resolution, VMS suspended all integration work on Project Argonaut effective March 22, 2023. VMS's engineering team had, at the time of suspension, completed integration milestones through Milestone 3 and accumulated approximately 14,200 engineering hours of work on the ATLAS-RT™ integration across the Argonaut platforms. VMS sent a formal dormancy notice to MeridianCode on July 14, 2023, invoking the MESLSA's dormancy provisions (Section 5.4). MeridianCode acknowledged VMS's Dormancy Status by letter dated August 3, 2023, triggering the twelve-month dormancy cap period under Section 5.4(c), which expires on August 3, 2024.
As of the date of this memorandum, VMS has paid a total of $12,320,000 under the MESLSA, consisting of:
• $8,000,000 — upfront license fee (paid June 21, 2022);
• $2,400,000 — Year 1 annual maintenance fee (paid June 21, 2022);
• $1,920,000 — integration services fees for Milestones 1, 2, and 3 (paid upon completion of each milestone between August 2022 and February 2023).
The total remaining contractual commitment under the MESLSA, assuming performance through the full five-year term, is approximately $7,680,000, comprising Year 2 through Year 5 maintenance fees (less Year 1 already paid), integration services fees for Milestones 4 and 5, and potential per-unit royalties up to the aggregate cap.
Critically for the antitrust analysis, VMS's engineering team, working under the direction of Chief Technology Officer Jerome T. Faulkner, developed three derivative works in the course of the integration process: DW-001, DW-002, and DW-003. These derivative works consist of approximately 47,000 lines of original code, developed primarily by VMS engineers to adapt ATLAS-RT™ functionality to the specific requirements of the Argonaut-A and Argonaut-C platforms. An independent valuation assessment commissioned from Hargrove Technical Consulting, LLC (Dr. Samuel Beecroft, lead technical consultant) estimates the commercial value of DW-001, DW-002, and DW-003 at between $1,800,000 and $2,500,000. The ownership and licensing status of these derivative works under Section 7.2 of the MESLSA is the subject of an ongoing dispute between the parties, which is analyzed in a separate memorandum on derivative works ownership and is relevant to the antitrust analysis discussed herein.
B. Specific Provisions Under Antitrust Scrutiny
The following MESLSA provisions are the primary focus of this antitrust analysis. Each provision is summarized below and analyzed in detail in Sections IV and V of this memorandum.
Section 7.2 — Derivative Works. Section 7.2 provides that any modifications, adaptations, extensions, or other derivative works based upon or incorporating the ATLAS-RT™ source code, created by VMS or its personnel during the term of the MESLSA, shall be jointly owned by VMS and MeridianCode. The provision further grants MeridianCode a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, sublicense, and create further derivative works from any such derivative work created by VMS. VMS contends that DW-001, DW-002, and DW-003 are solely VMS-originated works that, while functioning in conjunction with the ATLAS-RT™ environment, constitute independent innovations developed using VMS engineering resources and VMS proprietary methods. MeridianCode's position, as communicated through Redstone Whitaker LLP, is that the derivative works fall squarely within the scope of Section 7.2 because they incorporate or are based upon ATLAS-RT™ application programming interfaces and runtime libraries.
Section 4.3 — Use-It-or-Lose-It Clause. Section 4.3 requires that VMS commence and complete initial integration testing of ATLAS-RT™ on at least two of the five designated vehicle platforms within eighteen months of the MESLSA effective date. The resulting deadline is December 21, 2023. Failure to meet this requirement entitles MeridianCode to reduce the number of licensed platforms to those on which integration testing has been completed, with no corresponding reduction in the license fee. A critical open question — which is the subject of separate contractual analysis — is whether the dormancy period (commencing August 3, 2023) tolls the eighteen-month deadline under Section 4.3. MeridianCode has not confirmed its position on this tolling question.
Section 9.1 — Termination for Convenience; Fee Forfeiture. Section 9.1 permits either party to terminate the MESLSA for convenience upon ninety days' written notice, but provides that if VMS exercises this right before the twenty-four-month anniversary of the effective date (i.e., before June 21, 2024), VMS shall forfeit all prepaid amounts, including the upfront license fee, maintenance fees, and integration services fees paid through the date of termination. On the current record, this means VMS would forfeit the entire $12,320,000 already paid if it were to terminate for convenience before June 21, 2024.
Section 12.6 — Change of Control Consent. Section 12.6 requires the prior written consent of the licensor (MeridianCode) for any assignment of the MESLSA in connection with a change of control of VMS, whether by merger, acquisition, sale of substantially all assets, or otherwise. The provision states that such consent shall "not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed," but provides no definition of what constitutes reasonable withholding and no specified timeframe for MeridianCode's response to a consent request.
Combined Effect. Viewed in isolation, each of these provisions may appear to be a standard, commercially reasonable term in an enterprise software licensing arrangement. Viewed in combination, however, they create a comprehensive architecture of lock-in and switching costs that significantly constrains VMS's competitive options. VMS cannot terminate without forfeiting $12,320,000 in sunk costs. VMS cannot reduce its scope without risking loss of platform designations under Section 4.3. VMS cannot retain full ownership of its own derivative innovations. And VMS cannot undergo a change of control (or facilitate a Ashgrove Equity Partners exit) without MeridianCode's consent. It is this cumulative restrictive effect that forms the basis of the most colorable antitrust arguments discussed in this memorandum.
C. Scope of This Memorandum
This memorandum addresses the following bodies of law as they relate to MeridianCode's market position and the MESLSA provisions described above:
• Federal antitrust law: Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (restraint of trade); Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (monopolization and attempted monopolization); Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14 (tying and exclusive dealing); and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (unfair methods of competition), to the extent instructive on the analytical framework, though VMS would not have a private right of action under the FTC Act.
• Michigan antitrust law: The Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL §§ 445.771–445.788, which is directly applicable given the MESLSA's Michigan governing law provision.
The memorandum focuses on market definition, market power analysis, and specific conduct theories relevant to the MESLSA provisions. It does not address patent misuse or copyright preemption issues in detail; those matters are covered separately in the derivative works ownership memorandum currently in preparation by Gabrielle Moss. Similarly, this memorandum does not address potential claims under state unfair business practices statutes other than the MARA, though such claims could warrant separate analysis depending on the trajectory of negotiations.
III. Relevant Market Definition
Market definition is the threshold inquiry in any antitrust analysis, as it determines the frame of reference against which market power is assessed. The Supreme Court has described the relevant market as the area of effective competition within which the defendant operates. See Ohio v. Halcyon Corporation, 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2285 (2018); Calderon Industries v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 469 (1992). The relevant market has two dimensions: a product market and a geographic market. Both are addressed below.
A. Product Market
Proposed Relevant Product Market. Based on the characteristics of the ATLAS-RT™ platform and the competitive alternatives available to VMS, the most defensible definition of the relevant product market for purposes of this analysis is: automotive-grade embedded real-time operating systems designed for safety-critical vehicle applications. This is a narrower market than the broader category of all embedded RTOS platforms, and narrower still than the general embedded software market. The narrowness of the proposed market definition is analytically significant, as it directly affects the market share and market power calculations discussed in Section III.C below.
Distinguishing Characteristics. Automotive-grade embedded RTOS platforms differ materially from general-purpose RTOS products in several critical respects that support treating them as a distinct product market:
• Functional Safety Certification. Automotive-grade RTOS platforms must meet the requirements of ISO 26262, the international standard for functional safety of electrical and electronic systems in road vehicles. ATLAS-RT™ is certified to Automotive Safety Integrity Level B ("ASIL-B") or higher, reflecting its suitability for safety-critical applications including vehicle control, adaptive mobility, and advanced driver-assistance systems. General-purpose RTOS platforms typically lack ISO 26262 certification entirely, or are certified only at lower safety integrity levels that do not satisfy automotive OEM requirements.
• Real-Time Deterministic Processing. Automotive-grade RTOS platforms must guarantee deterministic response times for time-critical operations, including vehicle control inputs, sensor data processing, and actuator commands. The tolerances required for automotive applications — often measured in microseconds — exceed those of most industrial or consumer RTOS applications.
• OEM Qualification. Automotive OEMs impose rigorous qualification and validation requirements on embedded software suppliers, including extensive testing, documentation, traceability, and ongoing compliance obligations. The OEM qualification process for an automotive RTOS typically requires eighteen to thirty-six months and substantial investment, creating a significant barrier to entry for new suppliers and a significant switching cost for licensees that have already completed qualification with an existing supplier.
• Integration Complexity. Integrating an automotive-grade RTOS into a vehicle platform requires deep customization of the RTOS to the specific hardware architecture, sensor suite, communication protocols, and safety requirements of each platform. This integration work is non-transferable between RTOS platforms — that is, integration work performed with ATLAS-RT™ cannot be repurposed for use with a competing RTOS without substantial re-engineering.
ATLAS-RT™ Market Position. MeridianCode markets the ATLAS-RT™ platform specifically as an automotive-grade RTOS with certifications suited for safety-critical embedded applications in the vehicle control, adaptive mobility, and advanced driver-assistance system domains. MeridianCode's public disclosures and marketing materials emphasize the platform's ISO 26262 certification, its deterministic scheduling capabilities, and its track record of deployment with major automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers. This market positioning is consistent with the proposed narrow market definition.
Competitive Landscape. The competitive landscape for automotive-grade embedded RTOS platforms includes a limited number of established providers. Without identifying specific competitors by name in this memorandum, the market is generally understood to include: (i) two to three other dedicated embedded RTOS providers that offer ISO 26262-certified platforms comparable to ATLAS-RT™ in functionality and certification level; (ii) certain large industrial software conglomerates that offer automotive RTOS modules as part of broader embedded software suites; and (iii) a small number of emerging providers, including some offering RTOS platforms based on open-source kernels with varying levels of safety certification. The total number of providers offering fully certified, automotive-grade RTOS platforms suitable for ASIL-B or higher applications is estimated at no more than five to seven worldwide.
Demand-Side Substitutability. From VMS's perspective, the practical ability to switch from ATLAS-RT™ to an alternative RTOS is severely constrained by the switching costs already incurred. VMS has invested approximately 14,200 engineering hours in ATLAS-RT™ integration work, has paid $12,320,000 in fees, and has developed three derivative works comprising approximately 47,000 lines of code that are specifically designed to function within the ATLAS-RT™ environment. Switching to an alternative RTOS would require VMS to (i) forfeit or substantially rework this investment, (ii) requalify the alternative RTOS with VMS's OEM customers, (iii) re-engineer the derivative works for the new platform, and (iv) incur new license, integration, and certification costs. Hargrove Technical Consulting estimates that a full switch to an alternative RTOS would require an additional eighteen to twenty-four months and $8,000,000 to $12,000,000 in engineering and licensing costs. These switching costs are relevant both to market definition (they indicate that automotive-grade RTOS is a distinct product market from which licensees cannot easily exit) and to the market power analysis (they indicate that MeridianCode's position carries significant lock-in effects once a licensing relationship is established).
Supply-Side Substitutability. On the supply side, the ability of firms not currently offering automotive-grade RTOS platforms to enter the market is limited by several barriers: (i) the cost and time required to develop an RTOS capable of meeting ISO 26262 ASIL-B or higher certification requirements, typically estimated at three to five years and tens of millions of dollars; (ii) the need to establish relationships with automotive OEMs and complete their qualification processes; (iii) the requirement for extensive real-world testing and validation data; and (iv) the need to build a services and support infrastructure capable of supporting integration at the scale required by major automotive programs. These barriers to entry further support treating automotive-grade RTOS as a distinct product market.
Revenue Context. MeridianCode reported total revenue of approximately $310,000,000 for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2022, across its automotive, aerospace, and industrial embedded software segments. The automotive licensing segment represents a significant subset of total revenue, though the precise allocation is not publicly disaggregated in MeridianCode's SEC filings. For purposes of this analysis, the relevant revenue base is MeridianCode's automotive RTOS licensing revenue, not its total company revenue.
Conclusion on Product Market. The relevant product market for purposes of this antitrust analysis is narrow: automotive-grade embedded real-time operating systems designed for safety-critical vehicle applications, with a particular focus on platforms certified to ASIL-B or higher under ISO 26262. This narrow definition is both analytically defensible and strategically advantageous for VMS's purposes, as it increases MeridianCode's apparent market share relative to a broader market definition.
B. Geographic Market
The MESLSA grants VMS a worldwide territorial license, and the automotive RTOS licensing market is inherently global in nature. MeridianCode operates globally from its headquarters in Santa Clara, California, with engineering and support offices in multiple jurisdictions. MeridianCode's customers — automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers — operate on a global basis and typically seek worldwide license rights for embedded software that will be deployed in vehicles manufactured and sold across multiple geographic markets.
The competitive alternatives available to VMS are likewise global in scope. The principal competitors in the automotive-grade RTOS market are international enterprises with worldwide sales and support capabilities. There are no meaningful geographic barriers to purchasing an automotive-grade RTOS license from any qualified provider, regardless of the provider's physical location.
The MESLSA contains no geographic restrictions that would alter this analysis. There are no territorial limitations on VMS's right to deploy ATLAS-RT™ in vehicles sold in any particular market, and there are no exclusivity provisions tied to specific geographic regions.
Accordingly, the relevant geographic market for purposes of this analysis is worldwide.
C. MeridianCode's Market Share and Position
Company Profile. MeridianCode Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: MCDT) is a publicly traded embedded software company headquartered in Santa Clara, California. The company reported approximately $310,000,000 in annual revenue for fiscal year 2022 and employs approximately 1,400 people across its global operations. MeridianCode's product portfolio spans automotive, aerospace, and industrial embedded software applications, with the ATLAS-RT™ platform serving as its flagship automotive RTOS offering.
Market Share. Within the narrowly defined automotive embedded RTOS subsector, MeridianCode is understood to be one of a small number of significant players. However, precise market share data for the specific product market defined above is not publicly available and cannot be reliably estimated from MeridianCode's aggregate financial disclosures. MeridianCode does not disaggregate its automotive RTOS licensing revenue from its other automotive software revenue in its public filings, and independent market research reports on the automotive RTOS segment provide varying estimates depending on the breadth of the product category used. If VMS determines to pursue the antitrust arguments in a formal proceeding, I recommend retaining an economic consultant to prepare a rigorous market-share analysis based on proprietary market data and industry surveys. Preliminary discussions with Dr. Samuel Beecroft at Hargrove Technical Consulting suggest that Hargrove may be able to assist with the technical market landscape data, though a separate economic expert would be needed for the econometric analysis.
Factors Indicating Potential Market Power. Several factors suggest that MeridianCode holds significant market power within the relevant market:
(i) Limited Number of Certified Competitors. As discussed in Section III.A, the number of providers offering fully certified, automotive-grade RTOS platforms suitable for ASIL-B or higher applications is estimated at no more than five to seven worldwide. In a market with this few participants, each provider's individual market share is necessarily substantial.
(ii) High Switching Costs. Once a licensee such as VMS has invested significant engineering resources in integrating a particular RTOS — here, approximately 14,200 engineering hours and $12,320,000 in fees — the cost of switching to an alternative provider is prohibitively high. These switching costs give the incumbent RTOS provider significant pricing power and negotiating leverage over the licensee, independent of the provider's formal market share.
(iii) Proprietary Architecture. ATLAS-RT™ is built on a proprietary architecture with no drop-in replacement available from any competitor. The derivative works developed by VMS (DW-001, DW-002, DW-003) are specifically designed to operate within the ATLAS-RT™ environment and cannot be ported to a competing RTOS without substantial re-engineering. This architectural lock-in reinforces MeridianCode's market power at the individual customer level.
(iv) Derivative Works License-Back. Section 7.2's derivative works license-back provision further entrenches MeridianCode's market position by enabling it to systematically harvest licensee innovations and potentially incorporate them into the ATLAS-RT™ platform for the benefit of other licensees, including VMS's competitors. This creates a feedback loop in which each licensee's investment in improving ATLAS-RT™ strengthens MeridianCode's competitive position relative to alternative RTOS providers.
Factors Mitigating a Finding of Market Power. Countervailing factors must also be acknowledged:
(i) Presence of Other Established Providers. The automotive-grade RTOS market is not a monopoly. At least two to three other established RTOS providers serve the automotive sector with comparable certifications and feature sets. The existence of these alternatives, while limited in number, weighs against a finding of monopoly power.
(ii) In-House Development. Some large automotive OEMs develop proprietary RTOS platforms in-house, reducing their dependence on third-party providers such as MeridianCode. While VMS is not an OEM with in-house RTOS capabilities, the existence of in-house alternatives in the broader market expands the effective competitive set.
(iii) Open-Source Alternatives. Open-source RTOS platforms are increasingly available and are beginning to achieve safety certifications relevant to automotive applications. While these platforms may not yet match the maturity, certification level, or support infrastructure of established commercial offerings like ATLAS-RT™, they represent a potential competitive constraint that is likely to intensify over time.
(iv) Broader Market Context. MeridianCode's total revenue of approximately $310,000,000 positions it as a mid-size player in the broader embedded software market, which encompasses providers with revenues ranging from below $100,000,000 to several billion dollars. MeridianCode is not a dominant conglomerate with overwhelming market presence across all embedded software categories.
Preliminary Assessment. On the current record, MeridianCode likely holds a significant but not necessarily dominant position in the narrowly defined automotive-grade RTOS market. Its market share, while potentially substantial, has not been established with the precision required to demonstrate monopoly power under Sherman Act § 2, which typically requires proof that the defendant holds a market share of 65% to 70% or higher, sustained over a meaningful period. See Calderon Industries, 504 U.S. at 481; United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571 (1966). Further empirical analysis — likely requiring expert economic testimony — would be needed to establish or refute monopoly power with confidence. Nevertheless, even absent proof of monopoly power, MeridianCode's significant market position is relevant to the rule-of-reason analysis under Sherman Act § 1 and to the overall assessment of VMS's negotiation leverage.
IV. Federal Antitrust Analysis
A. Sherman Act § 1 — Restraint of Trade
Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides that "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Supreme Court has long recognized that this provision prohibits only unreasonable restraints of trade, not all contractual limitations on commercial freedom. See Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59–62 (1911); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997). Most challenged restraints are evaluated under the "rule of reason," which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the restraint produces significant anticompetitive effects within a relevant market, considering both the procompetitive justifications for the restraint and the availability of less restrictive alternatives. See Ohio v. Halcyon Corporation, 138 S. Ct. at 2284.
The MESLSA is a bilateral licensing agreement between VMS and MeridianCode. While Section 1 typically addresses concerted action between separate entities (as opposed to unilateral conduct, which is addressed by § 2), a licensing agreement between a licensor and licensee constitutes "a contract . . . in restraint of trade" within the meaning of § 1 if its terms unreasonably restrict competition. The analysis below evaluates each of the principal MESLSA provisions under the rule-of-reason framework.
1. Derivative Works License-Back (Section 7.2)
Section 7.2 of the MESLSA requires that modifications, adaptations, or extensions to the ATLAS-RT™ source code created by VMS engineers during the term of the agreement become jointly owned by VMS and MeridianCode, with MeridianCode retaining a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, sublicense, and create further derivative works from any such derivative work. This provision effectively requires VMS to grant MeridianCode access to VMS's independently developed innovations as a condition of the ATLAS-RT™ license.
Anticompetitive Concerns. The license-back provision raises several antitrust concerns when analyzed under the rule of reason:
First, MeridianCode obtains competitive intelligence and technology improvements at no marginal cost. VMS invested approximately 14,200 engineering hours and significant internal resources to develop DW-001, DW-002, and DW-003, valued by independent assessment at $1,800,000 to $2,500,000. Under Section 7.2, MeridianCode receives a perpetual, royalty-free license to all of this innovation without any additional compensation to VMS.
Second, MeridianCode can potentially use VMS's innovations to benefit MeridianCode's other licensees — including VMS's direct competitors in the adaptive vehicle market. If MeridianCode incorporates elements of DW-001, DW-002, or DW-003 into future versions of the ATLAS-RT™ platform, those innovations would be available to all ATLAS-RT™ licensees, effectively subsidizing VMS's competitors at VMS's expense.
Third, the license-back provision may discourage VMS from investing in further ATLAS-RT™ improvements, as VMS cannot capture the full value of its innovations. This chilling effect on licensee innovation is a recognized anticompetitive harm in the intellectual property licensing context. See U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of intellectual Property (2017), § 5.6 (discussing grant-back provisions).
Procompetitive Justifications. MeridianCode would likely advance several procompetitive justifications for Section 7.2. License-back provisions are common in embedded software licensing and serve legitimate purposes, including ensuring that the licensor can maintain and update its platform with the benefit of licensee-developed improvements, preventing fragmentation of the codebase, and facilitating quality control and certification integrity. Courts have generally upheld grant-back and license-back provisions in technology licensing agreements unless the licensor holds monopoly power and uses the provision to extend or maintain that power. See Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U.S. 637, 645–46 (1947); United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476, 489 (1926).
Case Law Analysis. The antitrust scrutiny applied to grant-back clauses depends significantly on two factors: (i) whether the grant-back is exclusive or non-exclusive, and (ii) whether the licensor possesses market power. Here, Section 7.2 creates joint ownership rather than an exclusive assignment — that is, VMS retains the right to use and exploit its derivative works, but MeridianCode also obtains a perpetual, royalty-free license. This is less restrictive than an exclusive grant-back, which would transfer VMS's rights entirely to MeridianCode. However, the royalty-free nature of the license-back and the breadth of the sublicensing rights granted to MeridianCode approach the economic effect of an exclusive assignment, as MeridianCode can exploit VMS's innovations freely and without limitation.
The DOJ/FTC Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of intellectual Property (2017) treat non-exclusive grant-backs as generally less likely to have anticompetitive effects than exclusive grant-backs, but note that even non-exclusive grant-backs can raise concerns when they are imposed by a licensor with market power and reduce the licensee's incentive to innovate. See id. at § 5.6. Given MeridianCode's significant (though not necessarily dominant) market position, this guidance supports a colorable argument that Section 7.2 warrants scrutiny.
Assessment. The derivative works license-back under Section 7.2 is the most antitrust-vulnerable provision in the MESLSA. It presents a colorable argument under the rule of reason, particularly given the breadth of the license-back rights, the value of the derivative works at issue, and MeridianCode's significant market position. However, the argument faces significant hurdles: the provision creates joint ownership rather than an exclusive assignment; license-back provisions are common industry practice; and VMS would need to establish that MeridianCode possesses sufficient market power for the provision to produce meaningful anticompetitive effects. On balance, the Section 7.2 argument is most valuable as negotiation leverage rather than a standalone claim.
2. Use-It-or-Lose-It Clause (Section 4.3)
Section 4.3 requires VMS to commence and complete initial integration testing of ATLAS-RT™ on at least two of the five designated vehicle platforms (Argonaut-A through Argonaut-E) within eighteen months of the MESLSA effective date, establishing a deadline of December 21, 2023. If VMS fails to meet this requirement, MeridianCode may reduce the number of licensed platforms to those on which integration testing has been completed, without any corresponding reduction in the license fee or refund of fees already paid.
Anticompetitive Concerns. Section 4.3 functions as a minimum-commitment obligation that pressures VMS to continue using ATLAS-RT™ across multiple platforms, even when business circumstances — such as the semiconductor supply-chain disruptions and Ashgrove Equity Partners's capital expenditure reduction directive — counsel in favor of scaling back or pausing the integration effort. By requiring VMS to maintain an active integration program on at least two platforms, the clause discourages VMS from evaluating or adopting alternative RTOS solutions for deferred platforms (Argonaut-B, Argonaut-D, and Argonaut-E), even if such alternatives might be more cost-effective or technically suitable.
Combined with the substantial switching costs already incurred ($12,320,000 in fees paid, 14,200 engineering hours invested), Section 4.3 creates a practical lock-in effect that constrains VMS's freedom to compete in the downstream adaptive vehicle market on the basis of the best available technology. If VMS's engineering team determines that an alternative RTOS would be superior for a particular platform, the Use-It-or-Lose-It clause penalizes VMS for acting on that determination by reducing its licensed platform count without a fee adjustment.
Legal Analysis. Minimum-purchase or minimum-use requirements in licensing agreements are generally permissible under the antitrust laws. Courts have recognized that licensors have a legitimate interest in ensuring that licensees make productive use of the licensed technology and generate the revenues on which the licensor's return depends. See, e.g., Beltone Electronics Corp., 100 F.T.C. 68, 209 (1982). However, minimum-use requirements can raise antitrust concerns when they are used to foreclose competition in a downstream market — for example, by requiring a licensee to use the licensor's product to the exclusion of competing products, or by penalizing a licensee for adopting competing technologies.
Here, Section 4.3 does not explicitly prohibit VMS from using competing RTOS platforms on any of the Argonaut platforms. However, the economic incentive structure created by the clause — specifically, the risk of losing platform designations without a fee refund — creates a de facto disincentive to adopt competing solutions. This is particularly significant in the context of a narrow relevant market with limited competitive alternatives and high switching costs.
Assessment. Section 4.3 is weak as a standalone Section 1 claim. Minimum-use requirements are common, and VMS agreed to the eighteen-month testing deadline in a negotiated commercial agreement. However, Section 4.3 becomes more significant when analyzed in combination with the other restrictive provisions of the MESLSA, as discussed in Section IV.A.5 below. The clause contributes to the overall lock-in architecture and is relevant to the cumulative restraint analysis.
3. Fee Forfeiture on Early Termination (Section 9.1)
Section 9.1 permits either party to terminate the MESLSA for convenience upon ninety days' written notice, but provides that if VMS exercises this right before the twenty-four-month anniversary of the effective date (June 21, 2024), VMS shall forfeit all prepaid amounts. On the current record, this means VMS would lose the entire $12,320,000 already paid — representing more than twenty percent of VMS's annual EBITDA of approximately $61,000,000 — if it were to terminate the agreement and switch to a competing RTOS before mid-2024.
Anticompetitive Concerns. The fee forfeiture provision creates a massive financial penalty for switching to a competing RTOS during the first two years of the agreement. In economic terms, the forfeiture operates as a switching cost that raises VMS's effective cost of adopting a competing product by $12,320,000, making even a significantly cheaper or technically superior alternative economically unattractive.
Legal Analysis. Early termination fees and forfeiture clauses are generally enforceable as liquidated damages in commercial agreements, and courts are reluctant to treat ordinary termination provisions as antitrust violations. See, e.g., TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. v. Owen Mumford USA, Inc., No. 01-C-6313, 2002 WL 32345608, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2002). However, when early termination penalties are so excessive relative to the actual damages suffered by the licensor that they effectively foreclose competition, they may raise antitrust concerns, particularly in the context of a dominant firm's licensing practices. The question is whether the forfeiture of $12,320,000 — the entirety of fees paid, with no credit for value received — constitutes an unreasonable restraint that goes beyond the legitimate protection of MeridianCode's investment in integration support and instead serves primarily to lock VMS into the ATLAS-RT™ platform.
MeridianCode would argue that the forfeiture reflects its legitimate interest in recouping its upfront investment in integration services and support, and that the two-year window is a reasonable period to protect that investment. VMS would counter that the forfeiture amount includes the $8,000,000 upfront license fee — the consideration for the license itself, which VMS has already received and used — and that forfeiting the entire sum upon early termination is punitive rather than compensatory.
Assessment. The fee forfeiture provision is more persuasive as part of a pattern of restrictive conduct than as an isolated antitrust claim. Standing alone, it would likely be characterized as a negotiated commercial term between sophisticated parties. In combination with the other restrictive provisions, it reinforces the lock-in effect and contributes to the cumulative restraint analysis.
4. Change of Control Consent (Section 12.6)
Section 12.6 requires MeridianCode's prior written consent for any assignment of the MESLSA in connection with a change of control of VMS, whether by merger, acquisition, sale of substantially all assets, or otherwise. While the provision states that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, it does not define the standard for reasonableness or provide a specified timeframe for MeridianCode's response.
Anticompetitive Concerns. The change-of-control consent requirement potentially restricts Kestrel Capital Partners' (or any successor private equity sponsor's) ability to execute an exit transaction involving VMS, as the ATLAS-RT™ integration may be material to VMS's platform value and a prospective acquirer's assessment of the business. If MeridianCode were to withhold or delay consent — or to condition consent on commercially onerous terms — it could effectively veto or impair a sale of VMS, using its position as RTOS licensor to exert leverage over VMS's ownership structure.
Legal Analysis. Consent-to-assignment provisions are common in technology licensing agreements and are generally upheld by courts as reasonable protections of the licensor's interest in controlling the identity and capabilities of its licensees. See SQL Solutions, Inc. v. Ostrander Corporation., No. C-91-1079 MHP, 1991 WL 626458 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1991). The "not to be unreasonably withheld" standard provides some protection for VMS, as a court or arbitrator would likely enforce this standard to prevent MeridianCode from exercising a blanket veto over legitimate change-of-control transactions.
Assessment. Section 12.6 has low antitrust significance standing alone. Consent-to-assignment provisions do not typically constitute restraints of trade within the meaning of Section 1, and VMS would have difficulty demonstrating anticompetitive harm from a provision that merely requires consent (subject to a reasonableness standard) for assignment in connection with a change of control. However, the provision could compound the other restrictive effects of the MESLSA if MeridianCode were to use the consent right strategically — for example, by conditioning consent on unfavorable amendments to the MESLSA or on VMS's waiver of derivative works ownership claims. In that scenario, Section 12.6 would become relevant to a broader pattern-of-conduct argument.
5. Cumulative Effect / Overall § 1 Assessment
The preceding analysis demonstrates that no single MESLSA provision constitutes a clear-cut unreasonable restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1. However, the combination of (i) the derivative works license-back under Section 7.2, (ii) the Use-It-or-Lose-It minimum commitment under Section 4.3, (iii) the punitive fee forfeiture for early termination under Section 9.1, and (iv) the change-of-control consent requirement under Section 12.6 creates what can fairly be characterized as a comprehensive lock-in architecture. Taken together, these provisions significantly constrain VMS's competitive options in the downstream adaptive vehicle market by:
• Preventing VMS from terminating the MESLSA without forfeiting $12,320,000 in sunk costs;
• Requiring VMS to maintain active integration on at least two platforms or risk losing platform designations without fee relief;
• Transferring VMS's independently developed innovations to MeridianCode at no cost, potentially benefiting VMS's competitors;
• Constraining VMS's (and Ashgrove Equity Partners's) ability to pursue change-of-control transactions without MeridianCode's approval; and
• Collectively creating switching costs that make the adoption of a competing RTOS economically impractical for VMS during the early years of the agreement.
Under the rule of reason, a court or arbitral panel would evaluate whether these provisions, taken together, produce significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market and whether those effects are outweighed by procompetitive justifications. MeridianCode would advance several procompetitive justifications for the restrictive provisions:
• Return on Investment: The MESLSA's restrictive terms ensure that MeridianCode receives an adequate return on its substantial investment in integration support, engineering assistance, and ongoing maintenance for the Argonaut program.
• Quality Control and Certification: The minimum-use requirement and limitations on derivative works ensure that ATLAS-RT™ deployments meet the quality and certification standards required for safety-critical automotive applications.
• Protection of Proprietary Technology: The derivative works license-back and change-of-control consent provisions protect MeridianCode's proprietary ATLAS-RT™ technology from misappropriation or unauthorized transfer to competitors.
VMS would counter that these justifications, while facially legitimate, do not require the degree of restriction imposed by the MESLSA. Less restrictive alternatives could achieve the same objectives — for example, a derivative works provision that requires VMS to license improvements to MeridianCode on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms rather than on a royalty-free basis, or a termination provision that provides for a declining forfeiture schedule rather than a blanket forfeiture of all prepaid amounts.
Net Assessment on § 1. A Section 1 claim based on the totality of the MESLSA's restrictive provisions has some merit as a theoretical matter. The cumulative lock-in effect is real, and the derivative works license-back is particularly vulnerable to antitrust challenge given its breadth and the value of the innovations at stake. However, such a claim would face significant practical hurdles. Courts are generally reluctant to second-guess the terms of negotiated commercial agreements between sophisticated parties — here, VMS is a portfolio company of a major private equity sponsor, advised by experienced outside counsel (Calderwood & Harkness LLP). MeridianCode would argue, with some force, that VMS freely negotiated and agreed to all of the restrictive provisions at issue and cannot now invoke the antitrust laws to escape a bargain it finds inconvenient. See Calderon Industries, 504 U.S. at 472–73 (noting relevance of information asymmetry and sophistication of parties to antitrust analysis of contractual provisions). The strongest value of the Section 1 analysis is as negotiation leverage, not as a basis for formal litigation.
B. Sherman Act § 2 — Monopolization / Attempted Monopolization
Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization of "any part of the trade or commerce among the several States." 15 U.S.C. § 2. A monopolization claim requires proof of two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 570–71; Harborview Holdings Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004). An attempted monopolization claim requires proof of (1) predatory or anticompetitive conduct, (2) a specific intent to monopolize, and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456 (1993).
Market Power Analysis. As discussed in Section III.C, MeridianCode's position in the automotive-grade RTOS market appears significant but falls short of the level required to establish monopoly power. Monopoly power is typically inferred from market shares above 65% to 70%, sustained over a meaningful period, combined with evidence of barriers to entry sufficient to maintain the defendant's position. See Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. at 571; Rebel Oil Co. v. Tarrant Holdings, 51 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). On the current record, MeridianCode's market share in the narrowly defined automotive-grade RTOS market has not been quantified. While the limited number of competitors (estimated at five to seven worldwide) suggests that each player holds a meaningful share, it is far from certain that MeridianCode's share exceeds the threshold for monopoly power.
Moreover, even if MeridianCode's market share were high, the presence of several credible competitors, the potential for in-house OEM development, and the emergence of open-source alternatives all weigh against a finding that MeridianCode possesses the kind of unconstrained market power — the ability to raise prices, exclude competition, or control output — that characterizes a monopoly.
Conduct Analysis. If monopoly power could be established, the derivative works license-back under Section 7.2 could be characterized as a mechanism for MeridianCode to acquire and incorporate licensees' innovations, thereby maintaining its technological superiority and raising barriers to entry for competitors. By systematically harvesting the improvements developed by its licensees, MeridianCode enhances the competitive quality of ATLAS-RT™ at its licensees' expense, potentially widening the gap between ATLAS-RT™ and competing platforms. This argument has some analytical appeal but faces the challenge that grant-back provisions are a common industry practice and have generally not been treated as exclusionary conduct under § 2 absent clear evidence of monopoly power and anticompetitive intent.
Attempted Monopolization. An attempted monopolization claim requires specific intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of success. The specific intent element is difficult to establish on the current record, as there is no evidence that MeridianCode's adoption of the Section 7.2 license-back was motivated by a desire to achieve or maintain monopoly power rather than by ordinary commercial considerations. The dangerous probability element is likewise difficult to establish given the presence of multiple competitors and the absence of reliable market share data.
Assessment. Section 2 claims appear unlikely to succeed on the current record without significantly more market data and evidence of anticompetitive intent. However, the threat of a Section 2 investigation or claim may have meaningful deterrent value in negotiations, particularly given MeridianCode's status as a publicly traded company. The filing of antitrust counterclaims in arbitration — or even the formal reservation of antitrust rights in correspondence — would create reputational and disclosure risks for MCT that its management and board would likely prefer to avoid. This deterrent effect is a legitimate and potentially valuable element of VMS's negotiation strategy, even if the underlying claims would ultimately be difficult to prove.
C. Clayton Act § 3 — Tying and Exclusive Dealing
Section 3 of the Clayton Act prohibits the sale or lease of goods on the condition that the buyer not deal in the goods of the seller's competitors, where the effect may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. 15 U.S.C. § 14. This provision encompasses both tying arrangements and exclusive dealing agreements.
Tying Theory. A potential tying argument can be constructed as follows: MeridianCode conditions the sale of the ATLAS-RT™ license (the tying product) on VMS's acceptance of the derivative works license-back under Section 7.2 (the tied product). In other words, VMS cannot obtain the RTOS license without also surrendering its intellectual property rights in derivative works — two analytically distinct "products" that are improperly bundled.
A tying claim requires proof of four elements: (1) two separate products or services; (2) the conditioning of the sale or license of one product on the purchase or acceptance of the other; (3) sufficient economic power in the tying product market to enable the seller to coerce acceptance of the tied product; and (4) an anticompetitive effect in the tied product market (i.e., a not-insubstantial amount of commerce is foreclosed). See Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 12–18 (1984); Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 35–36 (2006).
This theory faces a significant definitional challenge at the first element. The derivative works license-back is not a separate "product" in any conventional sense — it is a contractual term embedded within the MESLSA, not a distinct good or service that is separately available in the marketplace. Courts have generally required that the tying and tied products be separate and independently marketable, and a contractual obligation to grant a license-back to the licensor does not fit neatly within this framework. See, e.g., Brokerage Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 140 F.3d 494, 512–13 (3d Cir. 1998) (discussing separate products requirement).
Exclusive Dealing Theory. A more promising theory under Section 3 focuses on the exclusive dealing implications of Section 4.3's platform-commitment requirements. By requiring VMS to integrate ATLAS-RT™ on at least two of the five designated platforms within eighteen months, Section 4.3 can be characterized as a de facto exclusive dealing arrangement for the covered platforms: once VMS commits to ATLAS-RT™ integration on Argonaut-A and Argonaut-C, the switching costs and contractual penalties effectively prevent VMS from using a competing RTOS on those platforms. Moreover, the risk of losing platform designations for Argonaut-B, Argonaut-D, and Argonaut-E without fee relief discourages VMS from adopting competing solutions even on the deferred platforms.
An exclusive dealing claim under Section 3 requires proof that the arrangement forecloses a substantial share of the relevant market to competing suppliers. See Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327–29 (1961). Here, the foreclosure is limited to VMS's five designated platforms — a single customer's requirements. While VMS's contract with MeridianCode represents a $20,000,000 deal value, the foreclosure of a single licensee's demand is unlikely to constitute the kind of substantial market foreclosure required for a Section 3 violation.
Assessment. The tying theory is creative but faces fundamental definitional challenges that make it unlikely to succeed. The exclusive dealing theory is somewhat stronger analytically but still requires evidence of substantial market foreclosure that is difficult to establish based on a single licensing relationship. Neither theory is strong enough to serve as the basis for a standalone claim, but both contribute to the overall narrative of cumulative lock-in that underpins VMS's negotiation leverage.
V. Michigan Antitrust Reform Act Analysis
The Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA), MCL §§ 445.771–445.788, provides a state-law analog to the federal antitrust statutes. The MARA is directly applicable to the MESLSA, which is governed by Michigan law as specified in the agreement's choice-of-law provision.
Substantive Provisions. The MARA's two principal substantive provisions closely parallel the Sherman Act:
• MCL § 445.772 prohibits "[a] contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market," and is construed as the Michigan equivalent of Sherman Act § 1.
• MCL § 445.773 prohibits the "establishment, maintenance, or use of a monopoly, or an attempt to establish a monopoly, of trade or commerce in a relevant market by any person, for the purpose of excluding or limiting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices," and is construed as the Michigan equivalent of Sherman Act § 2.
Interpretive Framework. Michigan courts have consistently looked to federal antitrust precedent for guidance in interpreting the MARA. See, e.g., Dearborn Heights School District No. 7 v. Wayne County Intermediate School District, 233 Mich. App. 120, 128 (1998) ("[I]n most circumstances federal antitrust law provides guidance and direction in interpreting and applying the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act."). Accordingly, the substantive analysis set forth in Section IV of this memorandum applies with equal force under the MARA. There are no unique Michigan doctrinal features that would significantly alter the analytical framework or produce materially different results.
Remedies. The principal additional value of the MARA lies in its remedies provision. MCL § 445.778 provides for treble damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs by a successful plaintiff in a private action under the Act. This treble-damages remedy significantly increases the potential economic exposure for MeridianCode in any formal proceeding and enhances the deterrent value of an antitrust counterclaim or affirmative claim asserted by VMS. If VMS's total antitrust damages were quantified based on the economic harm of the lock-in provisions — including the $12,320,000 in fees at risk, the value of the derivative works ($1,800,000 to $2,500,000), and potentially broader competitive harm — a treble-damages award could be substantial.
Application to Arbitration. As discussed in Section VI below, the MESLSA requires binding arbitration of disputes under the Midwest Arbitration Institute rules. MARA claims, like federal antitrust claims, are generally arbitrable under Michigan law. The availability of treble damages under MCL § 445.778 adds meaningful economic weight to VMS's arbitration posture if antitrust counterclaims are included in an arbitration demand.
Assessment. MARA claims track the federal analysis in all material respects. The primary additional value of the MARA to VMS's overall strategy is the treble-damages remedy, which enhances the leverage associated with the antitrust argum