A little heads up for all of you that post online about legal matters....

[OptionZero]

Originally Posted by g6civcx

I disagree. #1 and #2 cannot be admitted into evidence per se because they are not admission to be used against you.

With #1, if you said "I owe Bill Gates $1 million" then it would be held against you. Litigants' assertions per se are never taken as facts unless it's an admission to be used against the speaker.

With #2, Litigant's claim to be first-to-invent per se is never taken to be facts in evidence without further proof. Under current patent practices, you either have to go to interference, invalidate the patent, or petition to have the patent undergo reexam. A lot of companies are trying interlocutory appeal but I'm not sure where that is going.

If you're trying to prosecute to get a patent then it would constitute mere allegation of patentability without specifically pointing out how the claimed invention distinguishes over the prior art.

If you said "I wasn't the first to invent the Internet", then that by itself would be used against you.

The last part I agree with if the totality of the evidence goes towards establishing character.

EDIT: I'm mixing admissibility with relevance, so I should explain it better...

Scenario 1
Contract dispute btw P and D

P says "D owes me $100 bucks!"

D may admit P's statement as a party admission, as you mentioned.

P may also admit his own statement as hearsay evidence of the speaker's (in this case, P's) state of mind. This was a problem I helped another friend figure out; basically, P's statement isn't being offered for its truth, but only to show that P believed D owed him (P) the money.

In a contracts case, depending on the circumstances, I am fairly certain that mental state becomes relevant, such as if there were some reliance theory being put forth.
----------------------------------

In a patent dispute, it's harder for me to envision the same pattern working, since state of mind of a speaker doesn't really go to anything in such a case, but you're the patent expert, I'm studying crim law (where the whole "sanity" issue makes what someone says relevant). I hope that made sense.