Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

W = FILED "`_,_,,, z¤
s ___ aecerveo ____ com
APR 2 4 ZUU7
Nelcela’s Proposed Modified CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT
onsrsncr or Annzoaa
Sumrnary of Claims BY"_—"‘“"—” DEPUW
· CV 02495*/*PH)6 ~/NHIWW
This case is in federal court based upon claims relating to copyright
infringement. As you have heard, the case involves competing claims of ownership
l over computer software used to process credit card transactions.
Both Lexcel, Inc., and Nelcela, Inc., claim to own certain software. This Court
has already found that certain software submitted in this case is substantially similar
beyond the possibility of random chance and that copying took place. Specifically,
when comparing the "authorization system and "merchant system" ofthe Lexcel, Inc.,
I software produced in CD format, with the Nelcela, Inc. "authorization system" and l
"merchant system" of the Nelcela, Inc., software, the Court has determined that
copying has taken place. The Court’s determination of copying is binding on your
decision in this case and you must accept it as true. l
The Court; however, has not determined that the elements of copying are
original or non-standard items. The Court has not determined whether Lexcel, Inc.,
or Nelcela, Inc., owns the "authorization system" and/or tmerchant system." That
issue is left for you to determine and may be based upon which party created the
"authorization system" and "merchant system” first. You may also find that the
copying found by the Court does not mean the two systems are one in the same.
Case 2:02-cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 494 Filed O4/24/2007 Page1 of 2

i
In addition, Lexcel, Inc., seeks ownership over three other software systems or
components of its software: the "Authorization/tsystedit.H" copyright, the "Database
Architecture" copyright and the "Card Production" copyright. It is for you to decide
Whether Lexcel, Inc., owns these software systems or components.
Once the ownership determination is made, later proceedings will determine
whether actual copyright infringement took place.
Sources: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F .3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994);
Cybermedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation, 19 F.Supp. 2d 1070, 1077 (N.D. Cal.
1998); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & C0., 831 F.2d 898, 901 (9* Cir. 1987). ·
Given
Modified
Refused I
Case 2:O2—cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 494 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 494

Filed 04/24/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 494

Filed 04/24/2007

Page 2 of 2