Case: Rembrandt Vision Techs. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., No. 2012-1510 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2013) (precedential). On appeal from M.D. Fla. Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Moore.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed: 1) grant of judgment as a matter of law that defendant did not infringe the asserted patent; 2) denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. CAFC affirmed.

  • Infringement: The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding, under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an expert witness’s trial testimony on subject matter beyond the scope of his expert report. The court correctly concluded that the expert’s late disclosure of his opinions was not substantially justified and was not harmless. Because the expert’s struck testimony was the only evidence presented at trial to prove that the accused products met a particular claim limitation, the court correctly granted judgment as a matter of law that the defendant did not infringe the asserted patent.