REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE , No. 14-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-1715 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 10/06/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ______________________ 2014-1715 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 3:11-cv-00819-TJC-JRK, Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and MOORE, Circuit Judges. PROST, Chief Judge. ORDER Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P., moves without opposition to dismiss its appeal as premature. Rembrandt Vision Technologies also moves without opposition for a 30-day extension of time to file its opening brief. Case: 14-1715 Document: 22 2 Page: 2 REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES VISION CARE Filed: 10/06/2014 v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON Rembrandt had moved in the district court to set aside an earlier judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). On July 10, 2014, the district court entered an order regarding the motion and stated "[i]t is the Court s intention to deny Plaintiff s Motion to Set Aside the Judgment" after other matters concerning fees and costs are determined. Rembrandt filed a protective notice of appeal, and now asks this court to dismiss the appeal as premature because the pending motion and fees and costs has not yet been finally decided. We agree that the matter remains pending before the district court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) The motion for an extension of time is denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel E. O Toole Daniel E. O Toole Clerk of Court ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 6, 2014 s25

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.