materials science (HR 221, $ 7 - the receipt "has my signature
thereon, and is the type of receipt I sent out in the ordinary
course of business when a manuscript was received"). Nothing
more is needed. Accordingly the receipt and paragraphs of the
declarations referring to such are admissible.
Snitzer moves to exclude the May 1992 Cooperman letter and
references thereto (Attachment III to 2045 and portions of 204S)
as being hearsay. While the letter is highly relevant and
corroborates Hill's testimony that Dr. Snitzer had requested that
the Hill manuscript be sent directly to Dr. Snitzer, the letter
is hearsay and Hill has failed to demonstrate that it falls under
a hearsay exception. Accordingly, the Cooperman May 1992 letter
is inadmissible. Snitzer also argues that paragraph 16 of 2045
is hearsay with respect to the May 1992 letter. Dr. Hill's
testimony attesting to what the letter says or what it means has
not been considered. However, Dr. Hill's testimony that 1) he
received the letter from Cooperman; and 2) that Elias Snitzer had
requested that the manuscript be sent directly to him are
admissible.
Snitzer seeks to exclude the Hill manuscript (Attachment IV
to 2045) as containing hearsay. Hill relies on the manuscript to
demonstrate conception of the invention. Dr. Hill testified as
to the contents of the manuscript and that he and the other Hill
inventors conceived of the invention as demonstrated by the
60
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007