Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. RONAN & FIRESTONE, PLC
Ray K. Harris (No. 007408) Merrick B. Firestone (No. 012138)
2 3003 North Central Avenue Veronica L. Manolio (No. 020230)
Suite 2600 9300 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 120
3 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Telephone: (602) 916-5000 Telephone: (480) 222-9100
4 r11arris@,fclaw.corn v.manoliogalronari-firestone.com
Attarrzeysfor the Nelcela Parties mbf.asst@ronan—tirestone.com
5 Attorneysfor the Nelcela Parties
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
9 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10 Merchant Transaction Systems, Inc., No. CV-02-1954-PHX-MHM
11 Plaintiff. THE NELCELA PARTIES’
12 V STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS
` AND ADDITIONAL FACTS IN
13 Nelcela, Inc., an Arizona corporation; SUPPORT OF THE RESPONSE TO
Len C6111F¤§1?8» 311 N1Z0113 1f€S1€1€111§ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
14 Alec Dol 3I° ICIG, EIII AIIZOH3 I`CSId€HIQ
Ebocom, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
15 POST Integrations, Inc., an Illinois
Corp.,
16
Defendants. I
17
And Related Counterclaims, Cross- g
18 Claims and Third-Part Claims. `
19 Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure ("LRCiv") 56.l(b), Nelcela, Inc. F
20 ("Nelcela") provides the following disputes to the Joint Parties’ Statement of Facts as well
21 as its own Additional Facts to support its Response to the Joint Parties’ Motion for Partial
22 Summary Judgment.
23 I. Statement of Disputed Facts
24 1. The Court’s ruling that the Nelcela software was substantially similar to the y
25 MTSI software or Lexcel software does not support the joint parties’ conclusion that I
26 Nelcela created an unauthorized derivative work. The similarities are based upon A
FENNEM01zE CRAIG, P.C.
A I ase 2:02-cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 563 Filed O9/18/2007 Page 1 of 4

l elements that are not copyrightable. The Court has directed the parties to brief the issue
2 of "analytic dissection" and until the Court rules on which, if any, specific portions of the
3 Lexcel software are copyright-protected, the finding of substantial similarity does not
4 mean that any "similarities" are impermissible.
5 2. Nelcela does not dispute the finding in the September 30, 2006 Order that
6 only "bankmerch.pbl" is common between Post and Nelcela. However, the
7 commonalities of the Nelcela and Post software(s) were not fully addressed in Phase I,
8 and Nelcela reserves its right(s) to identify the additional portions, if any, of commonality
9 between Post and Nelcela in Phase II.
l0 3. The jury did not determine copyright ownership and could not do so because
ll it was not instructed (and the Court made no determination) with regard to what elements
l2 of the Lexcel software are copyrightable.
l3 4. Even a fmding that Nelcela created an unauthorized derivative work would
14 not, as a matter of law, convey ownership of the derivative work (as opposed to the
15 preexisting work). Nelcela would own its own materials and would be permitted to
l6 pursue claims for infringement on or conversion of its own portions of code.
l7 5. See paragraph 4 above.
18 6. Nelcela never claimed to own the Lexcel software. Nelcela claims to own
l9 the portions of the Lexcel software that infringe on the Nelcela software.
20 7. Nelcela never claimed to own the MTSI software. Nelcela claims the MTSI
2l software infringes, and Nelcela is entitled to ownership of all original elements of the
22 MTSI software that Nelcela (or Alec Dollarhide) created.
23 8. There is no evidence that file bnkmerchpbl incorporates any copyrightable
24 element of the Lexcel software; consequently, Nelcela does own this file.
25 Paragraphs 9, l0, ll and l2 are undisputed.
26
ase 2:02-cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 563 Filed O9/18/2007 Page 2 of 4

1 II. Additional Facts in Support of Nelcela’s Response
2 1. The Court has already denied the Joint Parties’ Motion to Strike Nelcela’s
3 Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Third—Party Complaint. See, Docket No. 547
4 filed on August 22, 2007. Because the motion was denied, Nelcela’s Affirmative
5 Defenses and claims stand, and Nelcela did not address the portion of the Motion for
6 Partial Summary Judgment relying on the Motion to Strike.
7
8 DATED this 18th day of September, 2007.
9 FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. RONAN & FIRESTONE, PLC
10
11 By s/ Veronica L, Manolio with germission By s/ Veronica L. Manolio
Ray K. Harris Veronica L. Manolio
12 Attorneys for the Nelcela Parties Attorneys for the Nelcela Parties
13
14
15
16 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 18, 2007, I electronically transmitted the
17 attached document to the Clerk Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and I
18 transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/EMF registrants:
Ray K. Harris {
19 rharris@,fclaw.com
20 Co-Counsel for the Nelcela Parties
Nicholas J. DiCarlo
21 ndicarlo althedc firmcom
22 Local Counsel tor Merchant Transaction Systems
William McKinnon
23 mailgagwilliarnmc1;imion.corn
24 Attorney for Merchant Transaction Systems
25 in ,
26 .
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
HGEN R aee 2:O2—cv—O1954-IVIHIVI Document see Filed 09/18/2007 Page 3 of 4 1

1 Peter D. Baird
gbaird(22E1r1aw.cci1_i
2 Robert H. McKirga11
rmckirgamg&D1r1aw.cen1
3 Richard A. Ha110rarr
I`hH.11()1”2l11§&’211i1E1.\>\’.COI1'1
4 Kimberly Demarchi
kdemarchi(57>1r1aw.c0111
5 A ttomeysfor POST and Ebocom
6 George C. Chen
gccheugg0bryancave.c0m or
7 geroge.checngaD·brva11cave.c01r1
Attorneysfor Lexcel, Inc.
8
9 s/ Diana Renteria
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
I 8 {
19 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fmwamoim CRAIG, RC.
ase 2:02-cv—O1954-I\/IHIVI Document 563 Filed O9/18/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 563

Filed 09/18/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 563

Filed 09/18/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 563

Filed 09/18/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 563

Filed 09/18/2007

Page 4 of 4