Provenance

The archival records that form this microfilm collection are taken from the collections of three institutions: the Charles Babbage Institute of Computer History (CBI), a research center at the Walter Library of the University of Minnesota; the Hagley Museum and Library (HML), an independent research library near Wilmington, Delaware, whose collections document the history of American business and technology, particularly in the Mid Atlantic region; and the University Archives and Records Center of the University of Pennsylvania (UARC), an institutional repository whose collections primarily document the history of the University of Pennsylvania. Each of these three holds significant, but incomplete collections of the trial exhibit records submitted into evidence by the plaintiff and defendants in Federal Case 4-67-Civ. 138, Honeywell Inc. vs. Sperry Rand Corporation and Illinois Scientific Instruments, Inc. This case was filed and heard in the U.S. District Court, Fourth Division of Minnesota at Minneapolis between 1967 and 1973.

Historians of science and technology generally regard Honeywell vs. Sperry Rand as the definitive forum for the debate over and settlement of all patent and other intellectual property claims to the invention of the computer. The plaintiff and defendants introduced a comprehensive set of primary sources documenting the history of the development of the first digital computer, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC) and the early years of the computer industry. In 1984 Honeywell, Inc. donated its plaintiff’s trial records to CBI. A year earlier Sperry-Rand had placed its defendants’ records on deposit at HML. In 1989 the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania transferred its copies of the trial records to UARC. By combining the exhibit records of both plaintiff and defendants in a temporary, best–copy, "master" collection, the three collaborating institutions effectively recreated the extraordinary resource which had only fleetingly existed at the trial itself.

The target sheet for each trial exhibit and the master collection inventory which follow below both state the institutional collection to which a given exhibit belongs. Subsequent to microfilming and the application of appropriate quality control reviews, the project archivist disassembled the master collection and returned its constituent parts to the contributing institutions.

The exhibits used from the Charles Babbage Institute were taken from the "Honeywell, Inc.: Honeywell vs. Sperry Rand Records, 1864 – 1973" collection (Accession number 985-007; Collection number CBI 1). Honeywell, Inc. donated this collection to CBI in 1984. The collection contains nine records series – indexes to the collection, pretrial deposition testimony, deposition exhibits, deposition photographic exhibits, the plaintiff’s briefs, trial testimony, the plaintiff’s trial exhibits, final judgment, and miscellaneous – assembled by Honeywell, Inc. over the long course of the litigation. The largest of these records series, by far, is the plaintiff’s trial exhibit series. This series consists of the plaintiff’s first 6,000 trial exhibits and extends to 70% of the collection. Almost all these exhibits are the actual documents submitted to the court, as revealed by the color sticker affixed to the documented and annotated with the exhibit number. The ENIAC Trial Records microfilming project utilized nearly all the plaintiff’s exhibits in the CBI collection. The CBI collection does not contain any defendants' trial exhibits.

The Hagley Museum and Library’s contribution to the master collection was a record series within its "Sperry-Univac Records, 1935 – 1973" collection (Accession number 1825; HML does not further organize its archival collections in accordance with a collection number or classification system). This collection is composed of four records groups, one of which, "Records of the Sperry-Honeywell Lawsuit, 1935 – 1973," contains two records series, the "Original File, 1941 - 1955" and the "Chronological File, 1935 – 1973." The Chronological File consists of photocopies of defendants exhibits assembled by the Sperry Corporation. All of the documents are arranged chronologically and some have the trial exhibit numbers written on them by hand. None of the records in the Original File was used in this project. The Sperry Corporation deposited the Sperry-Univac Records collection at HML in 1983. Access to the collection was restricted for 25 years from the date of creation, a restriction which expired in 1998.

The University of Pennsylvania’s collection consists of photocopies of depositions, trial testimony, and both plaintiff’s exhibits and the defendants’ exhibits. It appears to be the set of copies retained by the attorneys for the Sperry Corporation. The copies of exhibits were taken after the exhibits were submitted to the Court and after Court staff affixed numerical markers to the first page of each. The Sperry Corporation turned this collection over to the University of Pennsylvania in 1974, primarily for the use of John G. Brainerd, who, in 1945-46, was an associate professor of electrical engineering at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering and the faculty supervisor of the ENIAC project. Brainerd later became Director (or Dean) of the Moore School and served in that position from 1954 to 1970. He retired in 1975, after nearly fifty years on the faculty. The Moore School set aside a storage area in its building for the indefinite retention of this collection, but its existence was not publicized and research in the collection not encouraged. It is unclear what intentions or purposes Brainerd may have had for the collection, but it is known that it languished while it was stored at the Moore School. In 1988, at the age of 83, Brainerd died.

In the spring of 1989 the Office of the Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science (successor to the Moore School and three others) transferred the collection to UARC. Technical services staff arranged and described these papers as the "ENIAC Papers, 1935-1973" collection (Accession number 89.90; collection classification number UPD 8). The run of exhibits at UARC is the largest and most nearly complete collection of ENIAC trial exhibits. The photocopied plaintiff’s exhibits are almost complete, lacking only the IBM exhibits and a small number of exhibits relating to the legal proceeding itself. Some of the IBM exhibits may be found in the HML collection, but none of the exhibits relating to the legal proceedings is contained in either of the other two collections. UARC’s defendants’ exhibits are also principally photocopies of the originals, but do include a substantial number of original exhibits, identified by the markers used by Court staff. UARC’s defendants’ exhibits also include a few original documents, such as the research notebooks of the Eckert-Mauchly computer company.

Arrangement

As described above, the master collection of ENIAC trial exhibits is composed of two records series, the plaintiff’s exhibits and the defendants’ exhibits. It was necessary, however, in facilitating the creation of the microfilm edition of the collection, to establish two supplemental records series, oversized exhibits and photographic exhibits. The U.S. District Court assigned trial exhibit numbers to all exhibits introduced in the course of the litigation. All four records series follow the Court’s numbering system and are arranged by trial exhibit number. In preparing the plaintiff’s and defendants’ exhibits for filming, the project archivist withdrew all oversized and photographic exhibits and created cross references to them. The oversized and photographic exhibits series are therefore not independent series, but rather subsets of the plaintiff’s and defendants’ exhibits series. The oversize records series contains both plaintiff’s trial exhibits and defendants’ trail exhibits. The photographic records series contains only plaintiff’s photographic trial exhibits.

Historical Sketch  

There are two epochs in the history of computing: before the completion of the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (known as the ENIAC), and after. While there are several controversies about the development of the ENIAC and its immediate successors, there is nearly universal agreement on three points: the ENIAC was the watershed project which convinced the world that electronic computing was not merely possible, but practicable; it was a masterpiece of electrical engineering, unprecedented in reliability and computing speed; the two men most responsible for its conceptual and technical success were John Presper Eckert, Jr., and John William Mauchly, both of the Moore School of Electrical Engineering.  

The history of computing prior to the ENIAC was long and varied. The desire for a mechanical means of computation was ancient, and had prompted the invention of many devices, from the abacus to the adding machine. These developments culminated in the work of Charles Babbage, whose grandiose, fully mechanical designs had largely been forgotten by the turn of the 20th century, and of Herman Hollerith, whose punched-card tabulators came to the rescue of the 1880 Federal Census. The one feature common to all these early inventions was that the structure was basically mechanical in nature. By the second decade of the twentieth century work was done on finding electro-mechanical computing devices to substitute the slower and inefficient machines. These efforts were undertaken by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology through the initiative of the electrical manufacturers and power companies who needed better equipment to monitor their large and expanding electrical systems. The result of this work was the creation of the differential or Bush analyzer. Though the Bush analyzer was able to perform many mathematical equations, it was still at its core a mechanical device with an electric drive and thus could not produce the greater precision and accuracy desired by scientists. It was partially in response to this slowdown in the advancement of electrical engineering technology that the ENIAC was developed.

The catalyst that advanced electrical engineering and the computer beyond the differential analyzer and to the ENIAC was the demands of the army during the 1930's and particularly the Second World War. The practical need that the differential analyzer could not solve effectively was the preparation of firing tables—charts that showed how to aim artillery accurately. Too many people and too much time were required to prepare these tables. The federal government was willing to fund research undertaken to improve upon the existing technology. Recognizing this opportunity to expand research and acquire new computing devices, the Moore School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Pennsylvania sought and obtained a contract to develop a differential analyzer of its own. The inadequacies of these mechanical devices at the Moore School were soon recognized by John W. Mauchly, a physics professor, and J. Presper Eckert, Jr., a graduate student.

Eckert and Mauchly believed the best way to improve computer devices was to make these machines primarily electronic rather than mechanical. Despite skepticism from his colleagues in the field, Mauchly thought that vacuum tubes could be used to accelerate calculations and to increase accuracy. Eckert also believed that not only could vacuum tubes be used but also that the existing tubes could be utilized if operated at low voltages. Sometime after Mauchly discussed their ideas with other faculty members and wrote a memo. In 1942 the liaison between the Army Ordnance and the Moore School, Lt. Herman H. Goldstine, heard of Mauchly's ideals for an electronic computer. Goldstine, who was well acquainted with the shortcomings of the differential analyzer, was greatly interested in this project and suggested that a proposal to the army be written to develop an electronic computer. On April 9th, 1943 the Army granted a contract to the Moore School to build a large general-purpose electronic computer. By end of 1945 the electronic computer developed at the Moore School, known as the ENIAC was operational.

The significance of the ENIAC was soon understood by the many participants in its development who would later vie for recognition and control over the project. The first controversy to arise concerned a paper written in June 1945 by John von Neumann, a mathematician who participated in discussions over the design of the ENIAC. In his paper von Neumann summarized the work of the project without giving any credit to Eckert or Mauchly; thus, presenting to those people in the profession who read the paper that von Neumann was responsible for the project. Patent rights and control over the project were also hotly contested. During an attempt by Irven Travis to restructure the accounting operations and procedures of the Moore School in 1946, Dean Harold Pender wrote a letter to Eckert and Mauchly requiring them to sign a patent release form for all work they have done at the University. He also demanded that they place the interests of the University first rather than their own commercial interests in their work. Because they could not agree to such terms Eckert and Mauchly resigned from the Moore School staff in March of 1946. Though they had left the University and formed their own company, known as the Electronic Control Company, they still encountered problems over the ENIAC.

In 1947 when Eckert and Mauchly began to look into the possibility of taking out a patent on the ENIAC, Army lawyers informed them that the circulation of von Neumann's paper among people in the profession made the ideas from the ENIAC part of the public domain. Eckert and Mauchly, however, did apply for a patent on the ENIAC in June of 1947. Armed with the potential patent rights to the ENIAC and freed from the constraints of the University, they hoped to succeed in forming a successful computer company; their attempts at this, however, failed when they were unable to maintain a dedicated funding source to cover their expenses. Eventually in February of 1950, Eckert and Mauchly were forced to sell their company, by then known as the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, and the patent rights to the ENIAC to Remington Rand Corporation. Though the ENIAC patent rights were owned by a large corporation, problems over the validity and rights to the invention continued.

While trying to finalize the patent application for the ENIAC, serious problems regarding the patent rights of Eckert and Mauchly, represented by Sperry Rand Corporation, arose in the 1960's. Sperry Rand was engaged, in the early 1960's, in litigation with Honeywell, Inc., and other companies, over the infringements of computer patents owned by Sperry Rand. By 1964 Sperry Rand was able to secure a stronger position on their claims to the electronic computer by being granted the ENIAC patent. With the patent in hand Sperry Rand, through its subsidiary Illinois Scientific Developments, Inc., notified all other companies in the electronic data processing field, except IBM, that they were infringing upon the rights the ENIAC patent and must pay royalties. Because of their former difficulties with Sperry Rand in the early 1960's and anticipated difficulties from a possible suit to collect royalties, Honeywell filed a suit against Sperry Rand in 1967 on the grounds of antitrust violations and unjustified claims to the electronic computer. The case was heard in the 4th Division of the Minnesota District Court (No. 4-67-Civ. 138).

The trial testimony began on 1 June 1971 in Minneapolis before Judge Earl R. Larson with the firm of Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West and the firm of Holladay and Molinar, Allegretti, Newitt and Witcoff both representing Honeywell Inc. The defendants, Sperry Rand Corporation and Illinois Scientific Developments, Inc., were represented by the firm of Dechert, Price and Rhoads. The plaintiff’s counsel presented its case on a number of points that would show the groundlessness of Sperry Rand’s claims to the exclusive patent rights and control of the electronic data processing field. The main points that they presented were generally confined to five areas, viz: a discussion of the work and developments in the field of electronics at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania between 1930 and 1947 as the result of "complex team effort;" a presentation of the state of research in the field of electronic digital computers undertaken at other institutions and companies during the 1930s and early 1940s; a explanation of the attempted domination of the electronic data processing industry by Eckert and Mauchly, and later Sperry Rand Corporation, through numerous patent applications based upon doubious claims, the defects of which were knowningly concealed from the patent office; a demonstration of Sperry Rand’s "pattern of prosecuting patent applications from which they knew no valid patents should issue;" and finally, an exposition of Sperry Rand’s plan to dominate the computer industry through the vigorous assertions of its patents and patent application "portfolio" which it had amassed through cross license agreements with IBM, AT&T, and Western Electric Company, Inc. (both in 1965). The plaintiffs also argued that through its cross-license agreement with IBM in 1956 and settlements with a number of other large computer companies, that Sperry Rand had effectively eliminated any threat of a careful investigation and analysis of the ENIAC patent claims. It was from this position of immense strength, Honeywell contended, that smaller companies would be powerless to fight.

During the course of the trial two major points rose which tested the rights of Eckert and Mauchly to the ENIAC patent and proved fatal to Sperry Rand's claims. The first point was over where the basic ideals used in the ENIAC's design originated. Sperry Rand contented that the ENIAC was solely the invention of Eckert and Mauchly; however, Honeywell stated that Eckert and Mauchly had taken the idea from John Vincent Atanasoff and his assistant Clifford E. Berry. Building upon the basic historical view that all inventions are the result of the work of many people over time, Honeywell capitalized upon a visit Mauchly made in 1941 to Atanasoff. During this visit Atanasoff showed Mauchly a small electronic computer he had developed a few years before. Because there were some similarities in the design and operation of Atanasoff's machine with the ENIAC, Honeywell asserted that Eckert and Mauchly used Atanasoff's ideas for their own machine. The second major point concerned the filing of the patent in 1947. Because von Neumann had written a paper about the design of the ENIAC and circulated it a year before the patent application was filed, it was argued that the ENIAC had become part of the public domain and could not be patented.  

On 10 October 1973 Judge Earl R. Larson presented his final ruling in the case. He determined that the ENIAC patent was invalid mainly because of the two points raised during the trial. He concluded that while Eckert and Mauchly may have created the ENIAC, they did not create the basic ideas used in the assembly of their computer. Judge Larson also believed that the antitrust charge was valid. He stated that the 1956 cross-license agreement between IBM and Sperry Rand was a technological merger and "an unreasonable restraint of trade … an attempt by IBM and S[perry] R[and] to strengthen or solidify their monopoly in the E[lectronic] D[ata] P[rocessing] industry." Though ruled as an anti-trust violation, the statute of limitations had run out and the charge had to be dropped. Sperry Rand chose not to contest this decision and the findings of the court became final.

Scope and Content Note  

The ENIAC Trial Records Preservation Project is a combined collection of the plaintiff’s and defendants’ trial exhibits presented in the patent case of Honeywell Incorporated vs. Sperry Rand Corporation and Illinois Scientific Developments, Incorporated. The combined master collection that was microfilmed following the original order assigned by the court and the parties to the suit.  

The plaintiff’s trial exhibit represents the largest series. There are 27,259 exhibits, each exhibit numbered from 1 through 25686 (material that appears to have been inserted later was given a decimal number). The main portion plaintiff’s series is arranged chronologically beginning with Charles Babbage’s Passages From the Life of a Philosopher, published in 1864, exhibit number one, and ended with correspondence from 1971, exhibit number 21755. This arrangement reflected the chronological argument presented by the plaintiff's attorneys during the course of the trial. The remainder of the series contains a variety of undated material, supplementary and sometime duplicate documents, photographs, charts and models used during the trial.

As one can readily expect, the plaintiff’s trial exhibit series contains documents that supported the major claims of Honeywell Incorporated in their suit. It contains correspondence, research notes, scientific and publicity articles, schematic drawings, photographs and charts. There is large amount of documentation regarding the research and development of the ENIAC and subsequent computers developed by J. Presper Eckert, Jr., and John W. Mauchly up to around 1951. Most of the material covering period after 1950 relates to the Sperry Rand’s efforts to finalize the patent for the ENIAC and to assert its rights to the major technological claims therein (to support Honeywell’s claims of antitrust actions). Honeywell, as the plaintiff, presented material that demonstrated the state of computer research undetaken by others such as Vannevar Bush and Samuel H. Caldwell at MIT, Vladimir Zworykin and Jan Alesander Rajchman at RCA, and Joseph R. Desch and Robert E. Mumma at National Cash Register Company. Their most important presentation related to the research of John Vincent Atanasoff at Iowa State College and the degree of contact and exchange between Mauchly and Atanasoff. Honeywell also submitted copies of the testimony and depositions of a number of the key figures in the development of the ENIAC and early computers that had be presented in other patent infringement cases.

There are number of large gaps (4,250 exhibits) in the collection that could not be filled with the material from the three participating institutions. Only 940 exhibits from this missing group could be identified from the surviving trial exhibit lists. Many of these exhibits were documents related to the IBM and may have either been removed after the trial or never submitted. It also appears that many of this missing exhibits may have been trial exhibit numbers that were never used but were simply set aside to facilitate the insertion of new material when needed.

The defendants’ trial exhibit series contains 7,167 exhibits, each numbered 1 through 6973, and is about a quarter of the size the plaintiff’s series. Unlike the plaintiff’s trial exhibits, the defendants’ chose to submit material in subject groupings. With Honeywell presenting most of the documents regarding the development of the ENIAC, Sperry Rand’s documents which form the defendants’ trial exhibit series related to specific points that they chose to argue in support of their claims to the patent rights of the ENIAC. Without the attorney’s guide to the organization of this material, it is difficult to determine with certainty the exact limits or descriptions of the subject groupings that form the defendants’ exhibit series. The series does appear to cover many of the same topics present in the plaintiff’s exhibits, as evidenced by the large amount of duplication exhibits. The series begins with copies of the complete United States Patent Office file for the ENIAC patent. There is a heavy concentration of secondary source material, in the form of copies of patents and articles from scientific and technical journals. All contents of this series generally falls within the date span of 1930 to 1965. The series does include correspondence, drawings, research notes, and reports; however, a large portion of the series contains published material such as journal and magazine articles, patents, technical reports and computer manuals. There is much more material in this series that relates to the internal organization, development and research of the Eckert Mauchly Computer Company.

There are also large number (1,042) of missing exhibits which could not be located in the contributing collections. These exhibits appear to fall mostly in the range from exhibits numbered 2566 to 3358. It is possible that some of the missing exhibits were copies of the design and final drawings of the ENIAC. The only missing exhibits that could be identified from original cross-reference sheets in the file were 123 research notebooks. The descriptions provided on the original cross-reference sheets, however, were nothing more than "Original Notebook." All of the other surviving trial exhibits, which were research notebooks and located near the missing ones indicated that the missing notebooks were probably documenting the research and development undertaken by the Eckert Mauchly Computer Company. In an effort to attempt to locate this valuable material, it was decided to create a new section at the end of the defendants’ trial exhibit series that included the surviving research notebooks from the Eckert and Mauchly Computer Company archives that now form a portion of the Sperry Corporation, Univac Division Records at Hagley. These original notebooks were assigned letters (from A to M) rather than numbers, to distinguish them from the known defendants’ trial exhibit numbers.

Virtually the entire body of documents presented by both parties is composed of photocopies of original documents. The exceptions to this are many of the printed materials, such as patents, articles, books and computer manuals. There were only a few exhibits that were original manuscript material. Part of this latter group include some research notebooks. During the creation of the master collection for microfilming, it was determined that many of copies of the original research notebooks of the ENIAC used as exhibits were poor and illegible. Because the significance of these notebooks not only to the court case but also to the research community, it was decided to substitute for the poor photocopies the original research notebooks from the records of the School of Engineering and Applied Science in the University Archives and Records Center of the University of Pennsylvania. There were also a few other instances in which original material was taken directly from the UARC collections to replace poor photocopies of important documents. Because of the size of this collection, however, the substitution of originals was limited to only the most important documents that could be readily obtained.

The researcher should be well aware of the fact that this entire collection consists mostly of photocopies not original documents. Because many of the copies were poor or deteriorating, the text can be partially or totally illegible in some documents. The original document may still survive it may be difficult to locate if it is still in the hands of the corporation or institution which allowed it to be copied for the trial. The best possible copy of the trial exhibit was chosen from the collections of the three contributing institutions.  

GUIDE TO THE MICROFILM CONTENTS

ENIAC TRIAL EXHIBITS COLLECTION

Contents

Reel Description

PAUV 98001a Finding Aid

List of Trial Exhibits

Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 - 17322

PAUV 98001b Plaintiff's Exhibits 17323 - end

Defendants' Exhibits

Oversize Exhibits (Plaintiff's and Defendants')

Photographic Exhibits (Plaintiff's)

PAUV 98002 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1 - 52

PAUV 98003 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 53 - 146.6

PAUV 98004 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 147 - 171

PAUV 98005 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 173 - 266

PAUV 98006 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 267 - 524.5

PAUV 98007 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 525 - 616

PAUV 98008 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 617 - 849

PAUV 98009 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 850 - 967

PAUV 98010 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 968 - 980

PAUV 98011 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 981.1 - 1155

PAUV 98012 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1156 - 1303

PAUV 98013 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1304 - 1362

PAUV 98014 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1363 - 1449

PAUV 98015 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1450 - 1584

PAUV 98016 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1586 - 1711

PAUV 98017 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1712 - 1875

PAUV 98018 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 1876 - 2093

PAUV 98019 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 2100 - 2350

PAUV 98020 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 2351 - 2464

PAUV 98021 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 2466.1 - 2759

PAUV 98022 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 2760 - 2887.1

PAUV 98023 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 2888 - 3275

PAUV 98024 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 3276 - 3571

PAUV 98025 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 3572 - 3777

PAUV 98026 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 3778 - 3871.5

PAUV 98027 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 3871.7 - 3996

PAUV 98028 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 3996.1 - 4251

PAUV 98029 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 4252 - 4457

PAUV 98030 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 4458 - 4599

PAUV 98031 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 4600 - 4794

PAUV 98032 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 4795 - 4976

PAUV 98033 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 4977 - 5249

PAUV 98034 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 5250 - 5524

PAUV 98035 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 5525 - 5733

PAUV 98036 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 5734 - 5958.5

PAUV 98037 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 5959 - 6087

PAUV 98038 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6088 - 6158

PAUV 98039 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6159 - 6237

PAUV 98040 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6238 - 6394

PAUV 98041 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6395 - 6472

PAUV 98042 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6473 - 6691

PAUV 98043 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6692 - 6875

PAUV 98044 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 6876 - 7199

PAUV 98045 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7201 - 7385

PAUV 98046 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7388 - 7591

PAUV 98047 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7592 - 7641

PAUV 98048 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7641.5 - 7717.4

PAUV 98049 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7718 - 7800

PAUV 98050 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7801 - 7988

PAUV 98051 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 7989 - 8067

PAUV 98052 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8068 - 8154.1

PAUV 98053 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8154.5 - 8217

PAUV 98054 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8218 - 8459

PAUV 98055 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8460 - 8575

PAUV 98056 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8576 - 8709

PAUV 98057 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8709.1 - 8869

PAUV 98058 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 8870 - 9143

PAUV 98059 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 9144 - 9351

PAUV 98060 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 9352 - 9705

PAUV 98061 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 9706 - 10046

PAUV 98062 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 10046.1 - 10298

PAUV 98063 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 10299 - 10598

PAUV 98064 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 10599 - 10902

PAUV 98065 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 10903 - 11263

PAUV 98066 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 11264 - 11585

PAUV 98067 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 11586 - 11899

PAUV 98068 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 11900 - 11959.1

PAUV 98069 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 11960, pt. 1 - 11960, pt. 5

PAUV 98070 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 11961 - 12166.5

PAUV 98071 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 12167 - 12541

PAUV 98072 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 12542 - 12802

PAUV 98073 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 12803 - 12835

PAUV 98074 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 12836 - 12971

PAUV 98075 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 12972 - 13233

PAUV 98076 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 13234 - 13522

PAUV 98077 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 13523 - 13654

PAUV 98078 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 13655 - 13785

PAUV 98079 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 13786 - 13886

PAUV 98080 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 13887 - 14264

PAUV 98081 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 14265 - 14442

PAUV 98082 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 14443 - 14493

PAUV 98083 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 14494 - 14599

PAUV 98084 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 14600 - 14780

PAUV 98085 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 14781 - 14943

PAUV 98086 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 14944 - 15111

PAUV 98087 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 15112 - 15204

PAUV 98088 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 15205 - 15304

PAUV 98089 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 15304.5 - 15523

PAUV 98090 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 15524 - 15823

PAUV 98091 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 15824 - 15874

PAUV 98092 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 15875 - 16039

PAUV 98093 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 16040 - 16161

PAUV 98094 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 16162 - 16299

PAUV 98095 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 16300 - 16607

PAUV 98096 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 16608 - 16733

PAUV 98097 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 16734 - 16956

PAUV 98098 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 16957 - 17374

PAUV 98099 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 17375 - 17798

PAUV 98100 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 17799 - 18341

PAUV 98101 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 18342 - 18772

PAUV 98102 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 18773 - 19182

PAUV 98103 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 19183 - 19244

PAUV 98104 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 19245 - 19432

PAUV 98105 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 19433 - 19717

PAUV 98106 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 19718 - 19962

PAUV 98107 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 19963 - 20291

PAUV 98108 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 20292 - 20508

PAUV 98109 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 20509 - 20675

PAUV 98110 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 20676 - 20927

PAUV 98111 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 20928 - 21006

PAUV 98112 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21007 - 21129

PAUV 98113 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21130 - 21261

PAUV 98114 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21262 - 21285

PAUV 98115 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21286 - 21415

PAUV 98116 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21416 - 21534

PAUV 98117 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21535 - 21611

PAUV 98118 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21612 - 21661

PAUV 98119 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21662 - 21662.5

PAUV 98120 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21663 - 21830

PAUV 98121 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 21831 - 22446

PAUV 98122 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 22447 - 22599

PAUV 98123 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 22600 - 23176

PAUV 98124 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 23177 - 23566

PAUV 98125 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 23566 - 23971.3

PAUV 98126 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 23972 - 24150

PAUV 98127 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 24151 - 24638

PAUV 98128 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 24639 - 24927

PAUV 98129 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 24928 - 25115

PAUV 98130 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 25116 - 25129

PAUV 98131 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 25130 - 25335

PAUV 98132 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 25336 - 25500

PAUV 98133 Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 25501 - 25685

PAUV 98134 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1 - 2.01-3

PAUV 98135 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.01 - 2.03-4

PAUV 98136 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-5 - 2.03-10

PAUV 98137 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-11 - 2.03-14

PAUV 98138 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-15 - 2.03-18

PAUV 98139 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-19 - 2.03-21

PAUV 98140 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-22 - 2.03-24

PAUV 98141 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-25 - 2.03-31

PAUV 98142 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.03-32 - 5

PAUV 98143 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6 - 11

PAUV 98144 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 12

PAUV 98145 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 13

PAUV 98146 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 14 - 15

PAUV 98147 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 16 - 19

PAUV 98148 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 20 - 22

PAUV 98149 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 23 - 32

PAUV 98150 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 33 - 34

PAUV 98151 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 35 - 38

PAUV 98152 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 39 - 41

PAUV 98153 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 42 - 44

PAUV 98154 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 45 - 46

PAUV 98155 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 47 - 616

PAUV 98156 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 617 - 1099

PAUV 98157 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1100 - 1274

PAUV 98158 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1275 - 1328

PAUV 98159 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1329 - 1451

PAUV 98160 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1452 - 1569

PAUV 98161 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1570 - 1738

PAUV 98162 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1739 - 1917

PAUV 98163 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1918 - 1949

PAUV 98164 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 1950 - 2046

PAUV 98165 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2047 - 2146

PAUV 98166 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2147 - 2252

PAUV 98167 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2253 - 2253.95

PAUV 98168 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2254 - 2389

PAUV 98169 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2390 - 2549

PAUV 98170 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 2550 - 3460

PAUV 98171 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 3461 - 3577

PAUV 98172 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 3578 - 3844

PAUV 98173 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 3845 - 4193

PAUV 98174 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 4194 - 4459

PAUV 98175 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 4460 - 4589

PAUV 98176 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 4590 - 4814

PAUV 98177 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 4815 - 4962 (1)

PAUV 98178 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 4962 (2) - 5005, part 1

PAUV 98179 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5005, part 2 - 5100

PAUV 98180 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5101 - 5144

PAUV 98181 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5145 - 5156

PAUV 98182 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5157 - 5248

PAUV 98183 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5249 - 5309

PAUV 98184 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5310 – 5458

PAUV 98185 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5459 – 5563

PAUV 98186 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5564 – 5676

PAUV 98187 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5677 – 5899

PAUV 98188 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5900 – 5984

PAUV 98189 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 5985 – 6120

PAUV 98190 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6121 – 6442

PAUV 98191 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6443 – 6650

PAUV 98192 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6651 – 6760

PAUV 98193 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6761 – 6799

PAUV 98194 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6800 – 6830

PAUV 98195 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6831, part 1 – part 4

PAUV 98196 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6832

PAUV 98197 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers 6833 – 6973

PAUV 98198 Defendants' Trial Exhibits Numbers A - M

PAUV 98199 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 9 – 2363

PAUV 98200 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 2368 – 2608

PAUV 98201 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 2609 – 2861

PAUV 98202 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 2863 – 3412

PAUV 98203 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 3413 – 5935

PAUV 98204 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 5926 – 22299

PAUV 98205 Oversize Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits Numbers 22300 – 25318

PAUV 98206 Oversize Defendants’ Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.0336 – 2.0341

PAUV 98207 Oversize Defendants’ Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.0342 – 2.0346

PAUV 98208 Oversize Defendants’ Trial Exhibits Numbers 2.0347 – 37

PAUV 98209 Oversize Defendants’ Trial Exhibits Numbers 1100 - 6867

PAUV 98210 Photographic Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits Numbers 27.1 - 22521