Legal Opinion
Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Florida
Decided July 10, 2014No. 3:11-cv-819-J-32-JRKPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
Following a more than two-week trial in this contentious and expensive patent ease, the jury found for Defendant. During trial, one of Plaintiffs experts gave contradictory testimony, causing the Court to disallow it, a ruling which has now been affirmed on appeal. Post-trial it was found that one of Defendant’s expert witnesses also likely gave false trial testimony. How should the Court decide Plaintiffs Rule 60 motion seeking a new trial?
Plaintiff, Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (“Rembrandt”), asks the Court to order a new trial under Federal…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Martha Ann Brundage Rozier v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Larry Norman Waddell v. Erik S. Hermersen, Gary Leonard Wheeler, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
- Scutieri v. PaigeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1987
- Johnny Richardson v. National Railroad Passenger CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
- Linda Harre, and Her Husband, William Harre v. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Etc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016