can look at the Hill manuscript and compare it with the insert
made by Dr. Snitzer and see that Hill exhibit 2058 shows the two
texts side-by-side. The trier of fact can also determine the
similarities highlighted by Hill. Thus, the evidence is
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
what its proponent claims. See Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
79 F.3d 1572, 1577, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(stating that the trier of fact can conclude for itself what
documents show). Therefore, Snitzer's motion to suppress Hill
exhibit 2058 is denied.
Anderson's Miscellaneous Motion to Suppress Hill's Evidence
Anderson failed to attach its objections to its motion to
suppress Hill's evidence. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed
on that ground alone.
Even considering Anderson's motion on the merits, the motion
is dismissed for the following reasons. Anderson moves to
suppress Hill exhibit 2044, the facsimile that Hill allegedly
sent to Elias Snitzer on 24 April 1992. Anderson's objections to
this document and to the declarations of Dr. Hill testifying as
to the content of the fax, are based on the document
demonstrating prior conception. Hill has made it clear that it
does not rely on the fax to establish an earlier date of
conception, e.g. earlier than its 8 September 1992 conception.
Rather, Hill has submitted Exhibit 2044 to demonstrate an
63
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007