Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 02/12/2024
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2120
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-00048-WHO,
Judge William H. Orrick, III.
______________________
Decided: February 12, 2024
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
RICHARD L. RAINEY, Covington & Burling LLP, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
JAY I. ALEXANDER, BRIAN GERARD BIELUCH; HYUN SIK
BYUN, Redwood Shores, CA; ROBERT HASLAM, MICHAEL
MOREY, Palo Alto, CA.
______________________
Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 02/12/2024
2 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
PER CURIAM.
Larry Golden filed a complaint against Samsung Elec-
tronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging infringement by
Samsung of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,163,287, 9,589,439, and
9,096,189. Samsung moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
dure 12(b)(6); Mr. Golden opposed Samsung’s motion and
cross-moved for summary judgment of infringement. The
district court granted Samsung’s motion, dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, and denied Mr. Golden’s motion
for summary judgment. Golden v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., No. 23-cv-00048, 2023 WL 3919466 (N.D.
Cal. June 8, 2023). Mr. Golden filed a timely appeal, which
we have jurisdiction to decide under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
We affirm.
I
Mr. Golden owns a family of patents that describe and
claim systems for locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock
when a detector or sensor in the system detects a chemical,
biological, radiological, or explosive agent. See generally,
e.g., Appx13–96. 1 Mr. Golden has previously asserted his
patents in a variety of suits and venues against other de-
fendants. See Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2023-1161, 2023
WL 3400595, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2023) (detailing the
history of Mr. Golden’s patent-infringement filings);
Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 983–86 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (same).
Mr. Golden filed the present action in January 2023,
alleging infringement of the ’287, ’439, and ’189 patents
based on several of Samsung’s smartphone products.
Appx97–129. Those patents have materially identical
1 “Appx” refers to the appendix that Samsung filed
in this court with its brief as appellee.
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 02/12/2024
GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 3
specifications and describe “a chemical/biological/radiolog-
ical detector unit with a disabling locking system for pro-
tecting products . . . and also for preventing unauthorized
access to and tampering with the storage and transport of
ordnance and weapons.” See, e.g., ’287 patent, col. 3, lines
36–41. The patents explain that the claimed “multi sensor
and lock disabling system” may “include[] a plurality of de-
tectors” where each detector may be “adapted for and set
up to sample for a specific agent or compound (biological,
chemical, or radiological).” Id., col. 8, lines 31–35; see also,
e.g., id., col. 18, lines 56–58 (claim 5 reciting the limitation
“one or more detectors . . . for detecting at least one of
chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive agents”).
Mr. Golden’s complaint alleged, in part, that Sam-
sung’s smartphones possess that claimed detector/sensor
functionality on three alternative bases: (1) through the
“Android Team Awareness Kit, ATAK,” which is “[b]uilt on
the Android operating system,” involves “plug-ins” and
“app specific software,” was “[i]nitially created” by the “Air
Force Research Laboratory” together with the “Defense
Threat Reduction Agency,” and is “available to warfighters
throughout the DoD,” Appx112 ¶ 55; Appx119, 127;
(2) through add-on devices or modifications that utilize the
smartphone’s built-in camera, Appx111 ¶ 54, Appx124–25;
and (3) through nine “standard sensors” which “can be used
as ‘biosensors,’” Appx126.
Samsung moved to dismiss Mr. Golden’s complaint, ar-
guing that, among other things, Mr. Golden’s complaint
failed to plausibly state a patent-infringement claim.
Appx146–48. More specifically, Samsung argued that Mr.
Golden’s complaint stated no alleged facts that went be-
yond allegations that Samsung was making and selling
smartphones that could be modified post-sale by others to
perform the accused detector/sensor functionality. On that
basis, Samsung said, there are no plausible allegations
Samsung was engaged in directly infringing activities.
Appx146–47. Nor, said Samsung, did Mr. Golden plausibly
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 02/12/2024
4 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
allege that Samsung committed inducement or contribu-
tory infringement, even if its smartphones were in fact
modified by others post-sale to have the accused function-
ality. Appx147–48.
The district court agreed and dismissed Mr. Golden’s
complaint with prejudice, concluding, in part, that “[t]he
allegations that his patents cover the identified functional-
ities included in Samsung’s products are wholly unsup-
ported and implausible on their face.” Golden, 2023 WL
3919466, at *2. Mr. Golden filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion, which was denied. Appx10. Mr. Golden then timely
appealed. Appx10.
II
We apply regional circuit law on the standard for re-
view of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, In re Bill of Lading
Transmission & Processing System Patent Litigation, 681
F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and that standard is re-
view without deference under Ninth Circuit law, Decker v.
Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595–96 (9th Cir. 2004).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a com-
plaint must state “well-pleaded facts, not legal conclusions,
that ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’” Whit-
aker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.
2021) (citations omitted) (first citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); and then quoting Ash-
croft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). “[A] pro se com-
plaint . . . must be held to ‘less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520–21 (1972)). “However, a pro se plaintiff must still
meet minimal standards to avoid dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6).” Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135, 1141 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). We reject Mr. Golden’s appeal arguments and
therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of his com-
plaint.
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 02/12/2024
GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 5
Mr. Golden argues that this court’s prior holding that
a different complaint of his—filed in a separate proceeding
against Google in the District of South Carolina but alleg-
ing infringement of the same patents—was “not facially
frivolous,” Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1229, 2022 WL
4103285, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022), precluded the dis-
trict court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a
claim in this proceeding, Golden Informal Opening Br. at
14–22. We disagree.
Although we previously held that Mr. Golden’s com-
plaint against Google in a separate proceeding was “not fa-
cially frivolous,” Golden, 2022 WL 4103285, at *2, we also
stated that “[o]ur decision does not preclude subsequent
motions to dismiss by the defendant for failure to state a
claim,” and we “express[ed] no opinion as to the adequacy
of the complaint.” Id. Our prior holding that Mr. Golden’s
complaint—alleging patent-infringement claims against
Google, not Samsung, based on Google’s products, not Sam-
sung’s—was not facially frivolous does not answer the
question of the sufficiency of Mr. Golden’s complaint
against Samsung in this proceeding. The district court did
not err by so determining. Golden, 2023 WL 3919466, at
*2 n.6. See also Golden v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 2023-1818,
2023 WL 6561044, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2023) (rejecting
a similar contention by Mr. Golden).
On the merits of the district court’s infringement-alle-
gation analysis, also challenged by Mr. Golden, see Golden
Informal Opening Br. at 27; Golden Informal Reply Br. at
9, we also see no reversible error. Mr. Golden’s complaint
does not plausibly allege that Samsung itself has commit-
ted any of the acts specified in 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), as the
factual allegations plausibly show, at the most, only that
Samsung-made-and-sold smartphones could be modified
post-sale by others. There is no plausible allegation that
Samsung itself is making, selling (or offering to sell), using,
or importing smartphones that have the claimed detec-
tor/sensor functionality, either literally or by equivalents.
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 6 Filed: 02/12/2024
6 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
And without such a plausible allegation, Mr. Golden has
presented no basis for survival of the complaint.
Mr. Golden’s complaint may be understood to allege
three ways the accused products practice the detector/sen-
sor functionality, but each is deficient for infringement
even at the pleading stage. Regarding ATAK, the com-
plaint itself indicates that plugins and app-specific soft-
ware, not developed by Samsung and only available
“throughout the DoD,” are required for the accused detec-
tor/sensor functionality. Appx112 ¶ 55; Appx119, 127. Re-
garding Samsung’s built-in cameras, the complaint relies
on proof-of-concept articles that support nothing more than
that, through post-sale add-on devices or modifications,
commercially available smartphones could one day con-
ceivably perform the accused detector/sensor functionality.
Appx124–25, 1716–21.
Finally, regarding the complaint’s statement, without
elaboration, that “standard sensors” “can be used as ‘bio-
sensors’”: That statement on its face does not assert that
“standard sensors” can be so used without add-ons; it is not
included in Mr. Golden’s claim charts; and in any event it
is wholly conclusory. Appx126 (emphasis added); see
Appx119, 124. This lone statement, lacking any concrete
specifics, fails to satisfy basic pleading standards for, as
relevant here, plausibly alleging that any of Samsung’s
smartphones, as made and sold by Samsung, i.e., without
any addition of hardware or software, contain “biosensors”
that perform the claimed sensing/detecting of hazardous
agents. See Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, 4 F.4th
1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[A] plaintiff cannot assert a
plausible claim for infringement . . . by reciting the claim
elements and merely concluding that the accused product
has those elements. There must be some factual allega-
tions that, when taken as true, articulate why it is plausi-
ble that the accused product infringes the patent claim.”).
The failure is particularly apparent in light of the articles
that Mr. Golden’s complaint cites for the proposition that
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 7 Filed: 02/12/2024
GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 7
cell phone cameras might, one day, be modified to perform
the accused detector/sensor functionality, Appx1716–21.
Cf. Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1354 (“Where, as here, the factual
allegations are actually inconsistent with and contradict in-
fringement, they are likewise insufficient to state a plausi-
ble claim.”).
In short, Mr. Golden’s allegations, even if true, at best
establish that Samsung’s smartphones might be modified
post-sale to perform the accused detector/sensor function-
ality, which is not enough for direct infringement on the
claims here. See High Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc.
v. New Image Industries, Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1555 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (“[A] device does not infringe simply because it is pos-
sible to alter it in a way that would satisfy all the limita-
tions of a patent claim.”). And Mr. Golden’s complaint does
not allege facts plausibly showing that Samsung had the
knowledge and intent regarding its customers’ activities
for Samsung to be liable for inducement under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(b). See Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1339; Appx108–
129. Likewise missing are allegations of facts plausibly
showing (contrary to the complaint’s own allegations) that
Samsung’s smartphones have “no substantial noninfring-
ing uses,” as required to establish contributory infringe-
ment under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
620 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Mr. Golden argues, in his reply brief, that the district
court, in conducting its analysis of the complaint, improp-
erly reduced the scope of his inventions to a single, gener-
alized claim limitation. Golden Informal Reply Br. at 13.
But this allegation about the district court’s analysis is no
substitute for Mr. Golden’s task on appeal—to focus di-
rectly on the complaint and demonstrate its sufficiency, a
matter we decide de novo on appeal. In any event, we dis-
agree with Mr. Golden’s allegation about what the district
court did.
Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 8 Filed: 02/12/2024
8 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
In the district court’s statement that Mr. Golden ap-
pears to challenge, the court merely summarized, at a high
level, the subject matter of Mr. Golden’s patents. Golden,
2023 WL 3919466, at *1 & n.2. The court then went on to
analyze the legal sufficiency of Mr. Golden’s specific in-
fringement allegations as stated in his complaint. It was
on that basis that the court concluded that “[t]he allega-
tions that his patents cover the identified functionalities
included in Samsung’s products are wholly unsupported
and implausible on their face.” Id. at *2. There was no
improper narrowing.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Mr. Golden
has shown no error in the district court’s determination
that his complaint insufficiently alleged infringement.
That conclusion suffices to affirm the dismissal of the com-
plaint. We need not address the district court’s alternative
ground for dismissal—that Mr. Golden’s suit against Sam-
sung was precluded because Mr. Golden had already un-
successfully asserted the same patent-infringement claims
against the United States based on materially the same
Samsung products. See Golden, 2023 WL 3919466, at *2 &
n.7 (discussing Golden v. United States, 156 Fed. Cl. 623
(2021), aff’d, No. 2022-1196, 2022 WL 4103287 (Fed. Cir.
Sept. 8, 2022)).
III
The dismissal of Mr. Golden’s complaint is affirmed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED