Case Name: Michael J. PAPPAS, PHD, P.E.; Frederick F. Buechel, M.D., individually and as trustees of Biomedical Engineering Trust, v. DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DePuy International, Ltd.; DePuy, Inc., v. Biomedical Engineering Trust; Endotech, Inc., DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ("DePuy") formerly DePuy Inc., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-24
Citations: 33 F. App'x 35
Docket Number: No. 01-2321
Parties: Michael J. PAPPAS, PHD, P.E.; Frederick F. Buechel, M.D., individually and as trustees of Biomedical Engineering Trust, v. DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DePuy International, Ltd. DePuy, Inc., v. Biomedical Engineering Trust; Endotech, Inc., DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (“DePuy”) formerly DePuy Inc., Appellant.
Judges: Before McKEE, BARRY and ALARCON Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Michael J. PAPPAS, PHD, P.E.; Frederick F. Buechel, M.D., individually and as trustees of Biomedical Engineering Trust, v. DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DePuy International, Ltd. DePuy, Inc., v. Biomedical Engineering Trust; Endotech, Inc., DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (“DePuy”) formerly DePuy Inc., Appellant.
No. 01-2321.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to LAR 34.1(a) April 8, 2002.
Opinion Filed April 24, 2002.
Before McKEE, BARRY and ALARCON Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Michael J. Pappas, Ph.D. and Frederick F. Buechel, M.D., appeal various orders of the District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning their lawsuit against Appellees DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and DePuy International, LTD. These orders denied in part their motion for summary judgment, denied their motion to strike certain testimony, and denied their post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, a new trial.
Because we write only for the district court and the parties to this litigation, who are familiar with the circumstances underlying the instant appeal, we need not recite the factual or procedural background of this dispute. We have reviewed the thoughtful Letter Opinion of the district court and the other issues presented on the record, and we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in those opinions and on the record.