Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06332/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICRO CONSULTING, INC., an 

Oklahoma Corporation, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PEDRO ZUBELDIA, an individual; ) 

MEDICAL ELECTRONICS DATA EXCHANGE, ) 

INC., an Oklahoma corporation; ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

l1 1 .L 1~ .U 

United Statrs Court ot Appi;rah ~rP.n Cil',,ui~ 

APR O 11992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6332 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(CIV-88-1348-W) 

Before LOGAN and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BRATTON, District 

Judge.** 

The issues in this appeal are whether defendants, Pedro 

Zubeldia and Medical Electronic Data Exchange, Inc., either 

infringed the copyright or misappropriated trade secrets of Micro 

Consulting, Inc. in developing a computer program for processing 

insurance company forms. After carefully reviewing the record, we 

are satisfied that the district court's findings of fact are not 

clearly erroneous, and that its legal conclusions are correct. We 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Howard C. Bratton, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of New Mexico, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-6332 Document: 010110239104 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 1 
can add little to the analysis stated in the district court's 

Memorandum Opinion of September 19, 1990, and we affirm for 

substantially the reasons stated therein. 

The only matter that deserves mention is the district court's 

treatment of the report of a nonlawyer special master it appointed 

to take evidence and assist the court in determining whether the 

defendants had infringed plaintiff's copyright. The court 

accepted the master's factual findings as correct, although it 

took other evidence as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2) 

(repealed Dec. 1, 1991). It disagreed, however, with the master's 

legal conclusion that a copyright violation occurred. 

The order of reference to the nonlawyer special master, a 

university professor of engineering and computer science, was to 

"determine whether the defendants have copied or unlawfully used 

the plaintiff's copyrighted computer program and any supporting 

materials." IR. tab 33. The district court's memorandum opinion 

of Sept. 19, 1990, IR. tab 126 at 7-8, references a July 28, 1989 

agreement of the parties that the special master was to be the 

fact finder in determining whether defendants "copied the 

plaintiff's computer program," but that the court was to determine 

the applicable law. Of course, the law requires that the district 

court review any of the legal conclusions of a special master. 

See Polin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 634 F.2d 1319, 1321 (10th 

Cir. 1980) (en bane). We are satisfied that the district court 

did not reject the master's fact findings, and that it could still 

find no infringement or misappropriation, as it did. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6332 Document: 010110239104 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 2 
AFFIRMED . 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6332 Document: 010110239104 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 3