Hemphill v. Johnson and Johnson, 919 F. Supp. 2d 48

Hemphill states a patent infringement claim for the ‘720 patent against Johnson & Johnson in the D.D.C.; patent issued 1985, with reexamination in 1999; patent term expires in 2002; plaintiff filed present complaint Feb 21, 2012; court grants Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal as a matter of law; prior suits against other defendants resulted in noninfringement; plaintiff alleges direct and induced infringement and uses §271; court analyzes patent term and §286 six-year bar; court concludes no recovery for conduct within patent term and beyond six years before filing; court finds patent expired before alleged infringing activity and that reexamination certificate does not extend term; court therefore dismisses as untimely and barred by statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims are time-barred under §286	Hemphill seeks recovery for pre-2006 infringing conduct.	Johnson & Johnson argues six-year bar applies.	Yes, barred under §286; untimely.
Effect of patent term expiration on liability for infringement	Infringement during term could be liable.	No liability post-expiration.	No liability for any infringement after December 10, 2002.
Does reexamination alter patent term	Reexamination certificate changes term.	Reexamination does not alter term.	Reexamination does not affect term; patent expired before alleged activity.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausible claims)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must plead plausible claims, not mere naked allegations)
Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (courts may consider attached/ incorporated materials on Rule 12(b)(6) motions)