Free Jury Verdict - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

f . * FILED ______ LODGED
__ RECEIVED ____ COPY
1 APR 2 4 2007
CLERK u S DISTRICT ccum
2 DISTRICT OF Anrzcrta
BY...».......__ DEPUTY
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
D DISTRICT OF ARIZONA I
6
7 Merchant Transaction Systems, Inc., )
8 ) N0. CIV 02-1954-PHX—l\./[HM
Plaintiff, )
9 vs. - ) VERDICT FORM
10 )
Nelcela, Inc., et al., )
I 1 Defendants. )
12
13 And Related Ccunterclaims, Crcss-Claims, )
and Third-Party Claims. )
I4
15 Please check which applies:
16 Based cn the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Lexcel, Inc.,
17 is the cwner cf the "authcrizaticn system" at issue in this case.
jg Based 0n the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Nelcela,
Inc., is the cwner cf the "authcrizaticn system" at issue in this case.
19
20 Based 0n the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Nelcela,
Inc., "Authcrizaticn System" and the Lexcel, Inc. "Authcrizaticn-Visa" system are nct
2l 0ne in the same, and each party cwns its 0vvn system.
22 "‘—‘ f““"“’°_“ f““ _“`
23 Please check which applies:
24 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Lexcel. Inc.,
25 is the owner of the "merchant system" at issue in this case.
26 Based 0n the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Nelcela,
27 Inc., is the cwner 0f the "merchant system" at issue in this case.
28
ase 2:02-cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 493 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 1 of 2

A ‘· *
1 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Nelcela,
2 Inc., "Merchant System" and the Lexcel, Inc. "Merchant System" system are not one in
the same, and each party owns its own system.
3
4 Please check which applies:
5
Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Lexcel, Inc.,
6 has met its burden in establishing ownership over the
7 "Authorization/Tystedit.c/Tystedit.H" copyright.
8 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Nelcela,
Inc., has met its burden in the establishing ownership over the
9 "Authorization/Tystedit.c/Tystedit.I—I" copyright.
IO
I I
12 Please check which applies:
I3 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Lexcel, Inc.,
14 has met its burden in establishing ownership over the "Database Architecture" copyright.
15 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, thejury, find that Nelcela,
Inc., has met its burden in the establishing ownership over the "Database Architecture"
16 copyright.
17
18 Please check which applies:
19 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Lexcel, Inc.,
20 has met its burden in establishing ownership over the "Card Production " copyright.
21 Based on the evidence presented at trial, we, the jury, find that Nelcela,
22 Inc., has met its burden in the establishing ownership over the "Card Production"
copyright.
23
24
25 Presiding Juror Date
26
27
28
Case 2:O2—cv—O1954-IVIHIVI Document 493 Filed O4/24/2007 Page 2 of 2 2

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 493

Filed 04/24/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 493

Filed 04/24/2007

Page 2 of 2