manuscript. Thus, Hill testified that he, along with the other
Hill inventors conceived of the invention and that the manuscript
describes the elements of the count.
We disagree that the Hill manuscript is hearsay. Hill is not
relying on the manuscript for the truth of the matter asserted,
e.g. that the contents of the manuscript are truthful. Rather,
Hill is relying on the manuscript to show that the elements of
the count were described. Thus, the document is not hearsay and
therefore is admissible.
Snitzer seeks to exclude the marked up version of the Hill
manuscript (Attachment VI to 2045). The marked up manuscript is
not hearsay, since Hill does not rely on the contents of the
manuscript for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, Hill
relies on the manuscript in support of its contention that once
the office of the Annual Review receives a manuscript it marks
the manuscript with the date in which the manuscript was
received. Thus, Hill relies on the marked up manuscript for the
8 September 1992 date stamped on the front of the cover of the
manuscript. Cooperman testified that in the ordinary course of
business, that manuscripts are routinely date stamped upon their
arrival (HR 270, lines 1-23). Thus, Cooperman establishes that
the stamp on the front of the Hill manuscript was done in the
ordinary course of business.
Snitzer additionally argues that the handwritten notations
61
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007