After judgment was entered against defendant, was set aside by the district court, and then reinstated on appeal, defendant filed motion for relief from the judgment again based on fraud on the court (Rule 60(d)) and based on newly discovered evidence and fraud (Rule 60(b)(2), (3)). Plaintiff’s judgment was for lost profits on its antitrust claims, but the new evidence that plaintiff’s asserted profits were artificially inflated by its fraudulent scheme to avoid paying excise taxes. Had the taxes been paid, it would not have earned any profits during the period on which its lost profits evidence was based. This did not constitute fraud on the court under Rule 60(d) because there was no clear evidence plaintiff or its attorneys had made an intentional, material misrepresentation aimed at the court. And while they had resisted discovery of excise tax payments as burdensome and irrelevant, there was no convincing evidence that plaintiff’s attorneys did so with knowledge or intent to conceal plaintiff’s scheme. However, the motion under Rule 60(b) was timely because the remand from the earlier appeal substantially changed the judgment, restarting the time for filing a Rule 60(b) motion. And, the concealed evidence of the excise tax fraud scheme prevented defendant from fully and fairly presenting its defense to the lost profits plaintiff claimed on its antitrust claim.