Larry Golden v. Google LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2024
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-05246-RFL,
Judge Rita F. Lin.
______________________
Decided: June 25, 2025
______________________
L ARRY G OLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
MATTHEW WARREN, Warren Kash Warren LLP, San
Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and C UNNINGHAM ,
Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 2
P ER CURIAM .
Before the court is Larry Golden’s appeal of a decision
by the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of California dismissing his amended complaint for
patent infringement against Google LLC (“Google”).
Golden v. Google LLC, No. 22-CV-05246-RFL, 2024 WL
1880336, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), recons.
den., No. 22-CV-05246-RFL, 2024 WL 2745904
(N.D. Cal. May 28, 2024). For the reasons stated below, we
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Golden is the named inventor and applicant on U.S.
Patent Nos. 10,163,287, 9,589,439, 9,096,189, and
10,984,619. See generally ’287 patent, ’439 patent, ’189 pa-
tent, ’619 patent; see also App’x 283.1 These patents have
common specifications and pertain to “a chemical/biologi-
cal/radiological detector unit with a disabling locking sys-
tem for protecting products . . . from terrorist activity, 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 ll. 36–41.2
On September 14, 2022, Mr. Golden sued Google, as-
serting infringement of the claims of the ’287 patent, ’439
patent, and ’189 patent because Google “makes, uses, of-
fer[s] to sell, or sells Google Pixel smartphones 3, 3XL, 3a,
3aXL, 4a, 4a(5G), and 5.” App’x 54–55; see App’x 54–213.
1 We refer to the supplemental appendix filed by
Google, ECF No. 23, as “App’x” throughout this opinion.
2 Mr. Golden has previously asserted these patents
against other defendants. See, e.g., Golden v. Apple Inc.,
No. 2023-1161, 2023 WL 3400595, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 12,
2023) (summarizing Mr. Golden’s patent infringement fil-
ings).
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 3
Google moved to dismiss Mr. Golden’s complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the
complaint did not adequately allege infringement.
App’x 221, 227; see App’x 214–229. The district court
granted Google’s motion with leave to amend because it
could not “say at this stage that amendment necessarily
would be futile.” App’x 280; see App’x 274–281.
On August 22, 2023, Mr. Golden filed an amended com-
plaint adding allegations relating to the ’619 patent and
newer models of Google’s phones. App’x 283; see
App’x 282–561. Mr. Golden alleged that Google infringed
the claims of the asserted patents “jointly, directly, and/or
indirectly . . . [or] under the ‘doctrine of equivalents.’”
App’x 286. Mr. Golden further contended that “Google ac-
tively encouraged the [Department of Defense/Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (“DoD/DTRA”)] and Draper La-
boratory Inc.’s infringement, knowing that the acts they in-
duced constituted patent infringement, and their
encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent in-
fringement.” App’x 284 (emphasis omitted); Decision at *3.
Google moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
App’x 562–580.
The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss
the amended complaint without leave to amend. Decision
at *5. The district court determined that Mr. Golden’s di-
rect infringement allegations failed because his infringe-
ment theories required the accused products to be further
modified to infringe. Id. at *1–3. The district court further
determined that Mr. Golden failed to state a claim for indi-
rect infringement because he failed to properly allege direct
infringement. Decision at *3. Regarding joint and willful
infringement, the district court held that Mr. Golden’s al-
legations were too conclusory to state claims, “even apply-
ing the lenient pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs.”
Decision at *1, 3–4. Lastly, the district court denied leave
to amend because amendment would be futile. Decision
at *4–5. Mr. Golden sought reconsideration and
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 4
disqualification of the presiding district court judge.
App’x 786–875. The district court denied Mr. Golden’s mo-
tions for reconsideration and disqualification. App’x 41–
43.
Mr. Golden appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II. D ISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss
according to applicable regional circuit law. Mobile Acuity
Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo a district court’s grant
of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed-
eral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id. To survive a mo-
tion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ash-
croft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While “pro se
pleadings are to be liberally construed,” Durr v. Nicholson,
400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005), a “pro se plaintiff
must still meet minimal standards to avoid dismissal un-
der Rule 12(b)(6).” Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135,
1141 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
A.
As an initial matter, Mr. Golden argues that our deci-
sion in Apple that a different complaint and claim chart
from Mr. Golden were “not facially frivolous” precludes dis-
missal here. See Appellant’s Br. 16–30; Golden v. Apple
Inc., No. 2022-1229, 2022 WL 4103285, at *2
(Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022). Google responds that under the
doctrine of issue preclusion, Apple has no bearing on this
appeal. Appellee’s Br. 25–30. We agree with Google.
Although we previously “express[ed] no opinion as to
the adequacy of [Mr. Golden’s] complaint or claim chart ex-
cept that it is not facially frivolous,” we also concluded that
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 5
“[o]ur decision does not preclude subsequent motions to dis-
miss by the defendant for failure to state a claim or for
summary judgment.” Apple, 2022 WL 4103285, at *2; see
also Golden v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2023-2120,
2024 WL 539973, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2024) (discussing
the scope of Apple), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1395 (2024). Ac-
cordingly, our decision in Apple has no preclusive effect on
the dismissal issue in this case.
B.
Mr. Golden also argues that the district court “inappro-
priately dismissed [Mr.] Golden’s case at the pleadings
stage,” Appellant’s Br. 13, because Mr. Golden “provided
the [d]istrict [c]ourt with enough factual allegations to
show Google makes the alleged[ly] infringing
smartphones.” Appellant’s Br. 14. Google responds that
the district court correctly dismissed the amended com-
plaint for failing to state a claim for direct infringement.
Appellee’s Br. 30–34. Google further argues that the dis-
trict court correctly found that the amended complaint
failed to state claims for indirect infringement, joint in-
fringement, and willful infringement. Appellee’s Br. 34–
39. We agree with Google.
As the district court explained, the amended complaint
fails to sufficiently plead a claim for direct infringement
against Google. Although a plaintiff “need not prove its
case at the pleading stage” and “is not required to plead
infringement on an element-by-element basis,” it “cannot
assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iq-
bal/Twombly standard by reciting the claim elements and
merely concluding that the accused product has those ele-
ments.” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342,
1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Each theory of infringement in the amended
complaint, App’x 400–439; Decision at *1, is deficient for
the same reason that Mr. Golden’s previous allegations of
infringement were deficient: the “factual allegations
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 6
plausibly show, at the most, only that [Google]-made-and-
sold smartphones could be modified post-sale by others.
There is no plausible allegation that [Google] itself is mak-
ing, selling (or offering to sell), using, or importing
smartphones that have the claimed detector/sensor func-
tionality, either literally or [under the doctrine of] equiva-
lents.” Samsung, 2024 WL 539973, at *3.
We conclude that the district court did not err in find-
ing that Mr. Golden’s five infringement “theories all re-
quire that the accused products be modified in some way
for them to infringe on the patents-in-suit.” Decision at *1;
see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d
1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding no infringement when
the accused products “do not infringe without modifica-
tion—the modification of installing the required soft-
ware.”). Mr. Golden’s first theory of infringement requires
the use of the third-party app “ATAK-CIV” for at least two
limitations of each asserted claim. App’x 300–302 ¶¶ 56–
63; see also App’x 400–407. Mr. Golden’s second theory of
infringement requires the use of “NFC tags,” which are ex-
ternal to Google products. App’x 307 (“NFC-enabled
smartphones communicate with NFC tags.”); see also
App’x 408–415. Mr. Golden’s third theory of infringement
requires using “Google’s camera lens with [a] microfluidic
lens” that “uses [a] microscope to focus on a chemical sen-
sor.” App’x 420–422 (emphasis added); see also App’x 416–
423. Mr. Golden’s fourth theory of infringement requires
external sensors that the complaint alleges must be added
on to Google’s device. App’x 308; see also App’x 424–431.
Mr. Golden’s fifth theory of infringement requires “Google
Beacon,” a separate device. App’x 308; see also App’x 432–
439. Therefore, each of Mr. Golden’s direct infringement
theories solely against Google fails because Mr. Golden’s
infringement allegations require modification of the ac-
cused products to show infringement.
Because Mr. Golden has failed to adequately plead di-
rect infringement by Google, his complaint also fails to
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 6 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 7
sufficiently plead indirect infringement and willful in-
fringement. See, e.g., Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S.
Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Indi-
rect infringement, whether inducement to infringe or con-
tributory infringement, can only arise in the presence of
direct infringement, though the direct infringer is typically
someone other than the defendant accused of indirect in-
fringement.”); Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E.
Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (because
“the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding
that RES infringed” the claims of the patent-at-issue,
“[c]onsequently, this court reverses the district
court’s . . . judgment of willful infringement”); Decision
at *3–4. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding
that Mr. Golden fails to state claims of indirect infringe-
ment and willful infringement.
In addition, the district court did not err in finding that
the amended complaint fails to sufficiently plead a claim
for joint infringement. A claim of joint infringement re-
quires “pleading facts sufficient to allow a reasonable in-
ference that all steps of the claimed method are performed
and either (1) one party exercises the requisite ‘direction or
control’ over the others’ performance or (2) the actors form
a joint enterprise such that performance of every step is
attributable to the controlling party.” Lyda v. CBS Corp.,
838 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Akamai Techs.,
Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)). Mr. Golden appears to allege
joint infringement by Google and Draper Laboratory Inc.
and Google and the DoD/DTRA. App’x 284; see also
App’x 441–445 (claim chart alleging induced, contributory
and joint infringement by DoD/DTRA and Draper Labora-
tory Inc.). However, Mr. Golden does not allege any factual
allegations regarding the degree of control that Google had
over Draper Laboratory Inc. or DoD/DTRA or allege any
facts showing those entities formed a joint enterprise.
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 7 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

GOLDEN v. GOOGLE LLC 8
Thus, the district court did not err in finding that
Mr. Golden fails to adequately allege joint infringement.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Golden’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,
we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2024 Document: 41 Page: 8 Filed: 06/25/2025

-- 8 of 8 --