Herman's reply.
Motions to sapress
Herman filed a motion to suppress certain ones of Barnes' exhibits (Paper 73). Barnes
relied on the objected to exhibits in support of its opposition to Herman second substitute
preliminary motion 1. Because Herman second substitute preliminary, motion I failed to set forth
a prima facie case, there was no occasion to consider Barnes' opposition. We did not rely on the
Barnes exhibits, or those portions of Barnes' exhibits, that Herman seeks to suppress in rendering
our decision. Accordingly, Herman's motion to suppress is dismissed.
Barnes filed a motion to suppress certain ones of Herman's exhibits that Herman relied
on in support of Herman's second substitute preliminary motion I and Herman's reply I (Paper
70). Because Herman failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to the relief requested, neither
Barnes' opposition nor Hernian's reply were considered. Accordingly, there was no occasion to
consider those Herman exhibits submitted in support of Hernian's reply that were not submitted
in support of its preliminary motion.
With respect to those documents Herman relies on in support of its preliminary motion I
that Barnes seeks to suppress, we find it unnecessary to consider the specific objections to the
admissibility of those exhibits, since Herman has failed to demonstrate that the inventorship
listed in the Barnes patent is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence, even assuming the
exhibits to be admissible. Accordingly, Barnes' motion to suppress is dismissed.
D. Judgment
Based on our decision, it is
26
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007