Noninfringement Expert’s False Testimony Does Not Justify New Trial

The court denied plaintiff's motion for new trial even though there was clear and convincing evidence that defendant's expert gave false testimony. "[Plaintiff] asks this Court to set aside the judgment based on the newly discovered evidence that [defendant's expert] lied about his qualifications and about performing tests. . . . There is heightened concern here because [defendant's expert] was a retained expert, solicited and sponsored by [defendant] in a patent case in which expert testimony was critical. . . . Regardless of the seriousness of [his] offense, however, [plaintiff] still must demonstrate that a new trial would probably produce a different result. Upon sober reflection, I conclude it cannot do so. . . . [W]hile there is no way for the Court to recount the whole of the evidence adduced at trial, there was strong evidence to support [plaintiff's] non-infringement case, independent of [defendant's expert] testimony."

Rembrandt Vision Technologies LP v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc., 3-11-cv-00819 (FLMD July 10, 2014, Order) (Corrigan, J.)