Case: 22-1196 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LARRY GOLDEN, DBA ATPG TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2022-1196
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
`in No. 1:13-cv-00307-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
`______________________
`
`Decided: September 8, 2022
`______________________
`
`LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
`
`
` GRANT DREWS JOHNSON, Commercial Litigation
`Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
`tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
`sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, GARY LEE HAUSKEN.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1196 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`2
`
`GOLDEN v. US
`
`Larry Golden appeals an order of the United States
`Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his
`patent infringement claims against the United States
`(“government”). We affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Golden owns a family of patents concerning a sys-
`tem for locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock upon the de-
`tection of chemical, radiological, and biological hazards.1
`In May 2013, Mr. Golden brought suit against the govern-
`ment under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), alleging that the Depart-
`ment of Homeland Security infringed his patents by
`soliciting proposals for the development of cellular devices
`through its “Cell-All” initiative. Mr. Golden claims that he
`responded to the solicitation along with cell phone manu-
`facturers such as Apple and Samsung. The Claims Court
`interpreted Mr. Golden’s complaint to allege that the gov-
`ernment “continues to fund development of these devices
`to this day,” and that through its efforts, it has “caused
`other manufacturers to develop, produce, and commercial-
`ize devices, such as cell phones, that infringe on [Mr.
`Golden’s] patents.” Golden v. United States, No. 13-307C,
`at 2 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 10, 2021). Over the next eight years,
`Mr. Golden repeatedly amended his complaint to include
`additional patent claims and to accuse additional devices
`manufactured by third parties, allegedly at the govern-
`ment’s behest.
`On March 29, 2021, the Claims Court issued a sched-
`uling order directing the parties to proceed with claim con-
`struction based on Mr. Goldin’s sixth amended complaint.
`The scheduling order directed Mr. Golden to “file [his]
`
`
`1 The patents and claims now at issue in this case
`are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,385,497 (claim 1); 8,106,752 (claim
`10); 9,096,189 (claim 1); 9,589,439 (claim 23); and
`10,163,287 (claim 5).
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1196 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`GOLDEN v. US
`
`3
`
`preliminary disclosure of infringement contentions (via e-
`mail, not by filing with the court) (Patent Rule 4) on or be-
`fore May 7, 2021.” Supp. App’x 1181. The Claims Court’s
`rules require:
`(c) a chart identifying where each element of each
`asserted claim is found within each accused prod-
`uct, process, or method, including the name and
`model number, if known;
`Fed. Cl. Pat. R. 4 (emphasis added).
`Mr. Golden timely filed his preliminary infringement
`contentions. The government moved to strike these con-
`tentions as deficient and to dismiss the case in its entirety,
`arguing that Mr. Golden failed to identify where at least
`two claimed elements were found in the accused devices as
`required under the Claims Court’s patent rules: sensors for
`hazardous materials and locking mechanisms. The Claims
`Court agreed with the government that Mr. Golden’s con-
`tentions failed to identify where these claim limitations
`were found in the accused products. The Claims Court
`granted the government’s motion to strike but gave Mr.
`Golden an opportunity to resubmit infringement conten-
`tions that would comply with the court’s rules.
`Mr. Golden filed revised contentions in August 2021.
`The government again moved to strike and dismiss, argu-
`ing that Mr. Golden failed to correct the previously-identi-
`fied deficiencies. The Claims Court agreed and dismissed
`the complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules of the
`Claims Court (“RCFC”) for failure to comply with a court
`order. Mr. Golden appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We review the Claims Court’s dismissal of a case pur-
`suant to RCFC 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. Claude E.
`Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183
`(Fed. Cir. 1990). “[T]he trial court’s exercise of discretion
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1196 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`4
`
`GOLDEN v. US
`
`will not be disturbed on appeal unless upon a weighing of
`relevant factors we are left with a definite and firm convic-
`tion that the court below committed a clear error of judg-
`ment.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`The court’s scheduling order required Mr. Golden to file
`his preliminary disclosure of infringement contentions in
`compliance with Patent Rule 4 of the Claims Court. In
`turn, Patent Rule 4 required Mr. Golden to prepare “a chart
`identifying where each element of each asserted claim is
`found within each accused product, process, or method.”
`Supp. App’x 1004. Despite having eight years to develop
`his case and two chances to provide infringement conten-
`tions compliant with Patent Rule 4, Mr. Golden failed to
`identify in the accused products at least two key elements
`claimed in his patents: the sensor and locking limitations.2
`On appeal, Mr. Golden does not argue that the accused
`Apple and Google devices themselves include the sensor
`and locking limitations. Instead, he argues that the Claims
`Court overlooked other devices—“the sensors and detectors
`of the Cell-All third-party contractors (NASA, Qualcomm,
`Seacoast, Rhevision, and Synkera)”—and that the Claims
`Court erred in “[f]ail[ing] to consider sensors and detectors
`
`2 The Claims Court expressly identified deficiencies
`regarding both the sensor and locking limitations in Mr.
`Golden’s contentions for claim 1 of the ’497 patent, claim
`10 of the ’752 patent, claim 23 of the ’439 patent, and claim
`5 of the ’287 patent. Golden v. United States, No. 13-307C,
`at 7-11 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 10, 2021). The only other asserted
`claim remaining in the case is claim 1 of the ’189 patent.
`While the Claims Court did not address that claim ex-
`pressly, the Claims Court identified deficiencies in the in-
`fringement contentions with respect to the locking
`limitation for claim 2 of the ’189 patent, id. at 9–10, and
`Mr. Golden has not argued to us that claim 1 is materially
`different from claim 2 regarding those deficiencies.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1196 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`GOLDEN v. US
`
`5
`
`that are not ‘native’ to the manufacture of Apple and Sam-
`sung products.” Appellant’s Br. 2. Mr. Golden failed to
`even mention some of these other devices in his infringe-
`ment contentions, and more importantly, he does not allege
`that these devices have actually been combined by the gov-
`ernment (or contractors acting on its behalf) with the ac-
`cused devices into a device or system that would infringe
`his asserted patent claims. Thus, Mr. Golden has not
`shown that the Claims Court erred in its decision. We have
`considered Mr. Golden’s remaining arguments and find
`them unpersuasive.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`