Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1161
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-04152-VC,
Judge Vince Chhabria.
______________________
Decided: May 12, 2023
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
JULIA K. YORK, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN COULSON, New York, NY.
______________________
Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/12/2023
2 GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and REYNA, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Larry Golden appeals the Northern District of Califor-
nia’s order dismissing his patent infringement, antitrust,
and unjust enrichment claims. For the following reasons,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Golden owns various patents disclosing systems for
locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock upon the detection of
chemical, radiological, or biological hazards. 1 In 2013, he
filed his first complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) in
the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the United States
government caused cell phone manufacturers, including
Apple, to produce infringing devices. Golden v. United
States (“Golden I”), 156 Fed. Cl. 623, 625–26 (2021). After
filing six amended complaints over the course of eight
years, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Id. at 632. While Mr.
Golden’s case against the government was pending, he filed
a parallel litigation in the District of South Carolina
against the cell phone manufacturers, including Apple.
Complaint, Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC,
(D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2019), ECF No. 16. The district court dis-
missed the case because it was “duplicative” of the co-pend-
ing case against the government in the Court of Federal
Claims where the manufacturers were accused of “infring-
ing on the same patents in the same manner.” Golden v.
Apple Inc. (“Golden III”), No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC, 2020 WL
415896, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2020). We affirmed. Golden
1 The patents at issue in this case are U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,385,497; 8,106,752; 9,096,189; 9,589,439;
10,163,287; 10,984,619; RE43,891, and RE43,990. S.A. 32,
36.
Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 05/12/2023
GOLDEN v. APPLE INC. 3
v. Apple Inc., 819 F. App’x 930, 931 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-
precedential).
Thereafter, Mr. Golden restyled his patent infringe-
ment claims as takings, antitrust, and unjust enrichment
claims and filed additional cases in the Court of Federal
Claims and District of South Carolina. See, e.g., Golden v.
United States, 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming the
dismissal of patent-infringement-based takings claims);
Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 21-2160, 2022 WL 986984 (4th
Cir. Mar. 31, 2022) (affirming dismissal of antitrust and
unjust enrichment claims); Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 22-
1229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) (affirming
the dismissal of patent infringement and antitrust claims).
Notwithstanding the prior dismissals, Mr. Golden again
filed suit against Apple in the Northern District of Califor-
nia for the same patent infringement, antitrust, and unjust
enrichment claims. S.A. 8–46. Apple filed a motion to dis-
miss the complaint as frivolous, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. S.A. 267–89.
The district court dismissed the claims as frivolous without
leave to amend. 2 S.A. 1. Mr. Golden appeals. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We apply the law of the regional circuit when reviewing
a motion to dismiss. K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time
Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
2 In the alternative, the court dismissed the patent
infringement claims as barred by issue preclusion because
they were fully litigating and decided in Golden v. United
States, 156 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2021), aff’d No. 13-cv-
00307, 2022 WL 4103287 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) and the
antitrust and unjust enrichment allegations as failing to
state a plausible claim. S.A. 1. We do not reach the court’s
analysis on these other grounds.
Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 05/12/2023
4 GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
The Ninth Circuit reviews a challenge to a district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de
novo. Id. Pleadings made by pro se litigants are “held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). “[A]
complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations
and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an argua-
ble basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The district court properly dismissed the complaint as
frivolous. Mr. Golden has filed at least six lawsuits assert-
ing the same patent infringement claims against Apple in
three jurisdictions. See, e.g., Golden I, 156 Fed. Cl. at 625–
26; Complaint, Golden III, No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC (D.S.C.
Oct. 15, 2019), ECF No. 16; Golden v. Apple Inc. (“Golden
IV”), No. 6:20-cv-02270-JD-KFM, 2021 WL 4260782
(D.S.C. Sept. 20, 2021); Golden v. Apple Inc. (“Golden V”),
6:20-cv-04353-JD-KFM, 2021 WL 5074739 (D.S.C. Nov. 2,
2021). Each of these prior cases were also dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Golden IV, 2021
WL 4260782, at *2–3 (dismissing antitrust claims as frivo-
lous); Golden V, 2021 WL 5074739, at *1–2 (dismissing pa-
tent infringement claims as frivolous); Golden III, 819 F.
App’x at 931 (affirming dismissal of patent infringement
claims as frivolous). The claims in this case mirror the
claims in these prior cases. Compare S.A. 8–46 (Com-
plaint) (alleging antitrust violations and patent infringe-
ment based on at least Apple’s iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and
Watch Series 5), with Complaint at ¶¶ 28, 45, 62, 79, 105,
Golden V, No. 6:20-cv-04353-JD (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2021), ECF
No. 10 (alleging patent infringement based on at least Ap-
ple’s iPhone 11, iPhone 12, and Watch Series 5). These al-
legations lack an arguable basis in law or fact and are
nothing more than another attempt by Mr. Golden to cir-
cumvent prior dismissals in other jurisdictions. After ten
years of asserting these claims in multiple jurisdictions,
Case: 23-1161 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 05/12/2023
GOLDEN v. APPLE INC. 5
Mr. Golden has yet to cure the deficiencies in his allega-
tions.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismis-
sal without leave to amend.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs awarded to Apple.
Golden v. Apple Inc.
Combined Opinion