Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00601/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00601-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM E. BOWHALL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-601-WKW

)

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., ) 

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On September 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation in

this case. (Doc. # 4.) On October 6, 2010, Plaintiff William E. Bowhall filed a Request to

Proceed - In Pro-Se, which after review, the court construes as an objection. (Doc. # 5.) The

court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation

to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In Plaintiff’s largely incoherent objection, the court distills one pithy argument,

“[w]hen does the statute of limitations begin and when does it end?” (Doc. # 5, at 5.) 

Plaintiff answered the first inquiry in the Complaint, and the Magistrate Judge answered the

latter inquiry in the Report and Recommendation. By alleging in the Complaint that Johnson

& Johnson began national television advertising of the Reach toothbrush in 1979-80, Plaintiff

leaves no doubt that all of his claims accrued no later than 1980, thirty years ago. (Doc. #

Case 2:10-cv-00601-WKW-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 3
1, at 2.) Plaintiff presented no arguments sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.1

 As the

Magistrate Judge explained in detail, Plaintiff cannot escape the fact that his thirty-year-old

claims are time barred under even the most generous construal of his legal theories.2

 (Doc.

# 4, at 5-10.) Likewise, Plaintiff’s ignorance of law arguments do nothing to dust the cobwebs off a long dead statute of limitations clock. (Doc. # 5, at 4-5.) Finally, Plaintiff’s claim

that he did not discover the toothbrush design fraud until a December 2009 visit to Lowe’s

Home Improvement raises more concerns about Plaintiff’s credibility than it does about

Lowe’s foray into the toothbrush market. (Doc. # 5, at 3.)

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 5) is OVERRULED.

2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 4) is

ADOPTED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED.

1

 Plaintiff alleges he was fourteen years old in 1975 when he presented the design for the Reach

toothbrush to his teacher, Mr. Powelson, and Johnson & Johnson representatives. (Doc. # 1, at 1-2; Doc.

# 5, at 3-5.) Thus, Plaintiff was at least nineteen years old in 1980, obviating any inquiry into tolling of

the statute of limitations due to his minority in 1975. (Doc. # 5, at 3, 5); Ala. Code § 26-1-1 (1975)

(“Any person in this state, at the arrival at the age of 19 years, shall be relieved of his or her disabilities of

minority.”); Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.52 (2002) (“[A] person who is at least 18 years of age on or after

January 1, 1972, is an adult of legal age for all purposes whatsoever.”).

2

 On the anti-trust claim, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts for tolling of the statute of

limitations on the basis of a “continuing antitrust violation.” Morton’s Market, Inc. v. Gustafson’s Dairy,

Inc., 198 F.3d 823, 827-28 (11th Cir. 1999).

Case 2:10-cv-00601-WKW-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 3
4. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice prior

to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). An

appropriate final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 12th day of October, 2010.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00601-WKW-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 3