Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. (Rembrandt) (plaintiff) sued Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVC) (defendant) for allegedly infringing a contact-lens patent. At trial, the dispute centered on whether the lenses’ surface layer and softness differed enough to avoid infringement. Both sides presented experts at trial. Because Rembrandt’s expert drastically changed his testimony and contradicted his own report, the trial court struck his testimony. JJVC’s expert testified that its lenses did not meet the surface layer limitations of the patent but did not testify about the softness limitation. The jury found JJVC’s lenses noninfringing, and JJVC requested judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The judge entered JMOL for JVCC, noting that without its expert testimony, Rembrandt lacked any evidence about the lenses’ softness. But after trial, Rembrandt discovered that JJVC’s expert had testified falsely. Specifically, JJVC’s expert testified that he personally tested the lenses when graduate students and lab supervisors had actually performed the testing. The expert himself was apparently out of the country during some of the testing. The expert also overstated his qualifications on certain testing methodologies, despite having no experience with them, and withheld test results and data analysis that undermined his opinions and testimony. Rembrandt requested a new trial, arguing it could not fully and fairly prepare its case without the data the expert withheld. The trial court denied a new trial, and Rembrandt appealed.