## Facts

- Rembrandt owned U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327, directed to soft gas permeable contact lenses with a tear-wettable surface layer containing hydroxy acrylic monomer units.
- Rembrandt sued Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVC), alleging that Acuvue Advance® and Acuvue Oasys® contact lenses infringed the patent.
- At trial, Rembrandt’s infringement expert changed key opinions from his report; the district court found the testimony unreliable and struck it, leaving Rembrandt without admissible proof on the “soft gas permeable” limitation.
- JJVC relied on expert testimony and testing to support noninfringement, including opinions about whether the accused lenses met the patent’s surface-layer limitations.
- The jury returned a verdict of no infringement, and the district court granted JMOL of noninfringement based on Rembrandt’s failure of proof on the “soft gas permeable” limitation.
- After trial, Rembrandt uncovered evidence that JJVC’s expert (i) falsely testified he personally conducted certain tests, (ii) overstated relevant qualifications, and (iii) withheld test results and analyses that undermined his opinions.
- Rembrandt moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), arguing the misconduct prevented it from fully and fairly preparing and presenting its case; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. What showing is required for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3): must the movant prove the outcome would have changed, or that the misconduct substantially interfered with a full and fair presentation?
2. Whether JJVC’s expert’s false testimony and withholding of testing data constituted Rule 60(b)(3) misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Whether the misconduct substantially interfered with Rembrandt’s ability to prepare for trial and to cross-examine and impeach JJVC’s expert.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the order denying Rule 60(b)(3) relief and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that Rembrandt proved by clear and convincing evidence that fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct occurred.
- The court held the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by effectively requiring proof that the result would have been different absent the misconduct.
- Applying the correct standard, the court concluded the misconduct substantially interfered with Rembrandt’s ability to fully and fairly prepare and present its case because the withheld data and misrepresentations impaired meaningful cross-examination and impeachment of a key expert.
- A dissent would have affirmed, reasoning the prior JMOL turned on Rembrandt’s independent failure of proof on the “soft gas permeable” limitation.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 60(b)(3) movant must prove fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.
- The movant need not show the verdict would have changed absent the misconduct; the question is whether the misconduct substantially interfered with the movant’s ability to fully and fairly prepare and present its case.
- Expert false testimony about testing and qualifications, and withholding underlying test data that undermines expert opinions, can constitute Rule 60(b)(3) misconduct when it impairs effective cross-examination and impeachment.
- Rule 60(b)(3) protects the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, not merely outcome accuracy.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit ordered a new infringement trial because JJVC’s expert-related misrepresentations and withheld testing data satisfied Rule 60(b)(3) and substantially interfered with Rembrandt’s ability to litigate through informed discovery, preparation, and cross-examination, making the prior proceedings unfair under the governing standard.


Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., 818 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016)