In Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., [2015-1079] (April 7, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s denial of a new trial under Rule 60(b)(3).<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit noted that the case returned it following “an unusual set of circumstances.”\u00a0 At trial the testimony of Rembrandt’s expert, Dr. Beebe was stricken because his testimony changed so dramatically on cross examination.\u00a0 J&J’s expert, Dr. Bielawski piled on during his testimony, stating several times, and in several ways, that \u00a0Dr. Beebe’s testimony should not be trusted.<\/p>\n
After trial, Rembrandt received information suggesting that Dr. Bielawski testified falsely at trial, which Johnson & Johnson does not dispute.\u00a0 Specifically, Dr. Bielawski repeatedly testified that he personally conducted the testing. on JJVC\u2019s accused lenses when, in fact, the testing was conducted by Dr. Bielawski\u2019s graduate students and various lab supervisors.\u00a0 Moreover, it appears that Dr. Bielawski overstated his qualifications and experience with these testing methodologies.\u00a0 In addition it appeared that Dr. Bielawski\u00a0withheld some of the data from the tests.<\/p>\n
To prevail on a motion under Rule 60(b)(3) in the Eleventh Circuit, the Federal Circuit said a\u00a0movant must establish that: (1) the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct; and (2) this conduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting its case.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that proof that the result of the case would have been different\u00a0but for the fraud or misconduct is not required; instead, Rule 60(b)(3) \u201cis aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court clearly erred in finding that Rembrandt had a full and fair opportunity to present its infringement case.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., [2015-1079] (April 7, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s denial of a new trial under Rule 60(b)(3). The Federal Circuit noted that the case … Continue reading