Pro se appellant loses at CAFC

Hemphill v. Johnson and Johnson

Of relevance in the case:


The district court correctly ruled that
“reexamination certificates do not alter the term of a patent” and
therefore,the certificate did not change the fact that
even if J&J had infringed the ’720 patent before its expiration
in 2002, recovery was time-barred when Hemphill sued in 2012 .



no recovery “for any infringement committed more than
six years prior to the filing of the complaint,” 35 U.S.C. § 286