Case: 22-1229 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LARRY GOLDEN,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS USA, LG
`ELECTRONICS USA, INC., QUALCOMM
`INCORPORATED, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`PANASONIC CORPORATION, AT&T INC.,
`VERIZON CORPORATION SERVICE GROUP,
`SPRINT CORPORATION, T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, FAIRWAY
`FORD LINCOLN OF GREENVILLE, GENERAL
`MOTORS COMPANY, KEVIN WHITAKER
`CHEVROLET, FCA US LLC, BIG O DODGE
`CHRYSLER JEEP RAM,
`Defendants
`______________________
`
`2022-1229
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of South Carolina in No. 6:20-cv-04353-JD, Judge
`Joseph Dawson, III.
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------
`
`LARRY GOLDEN,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1229 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`2
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant
`______________________
`
`2022-1267
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of South Carolina in No. 6:21-cv-00244-JD, Judge
`Joseph Dawson, III.
`
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: September 8, 2022
`______________________
`
`LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM
`Larry Golden appeals two orders of the United States
`District Court for the District of South Carolina (“district
`court”) dismissing his patent infringement claims against
`various defendants. We affirm the dismissal in Case
`No. 22-1229 but vacate the dismissal in Case No. 22-1267
`and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
`opinion.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Golden owns a family of patents concerning a sys-
`tem for locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock upon the
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1229 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`3
`
`detection of chemical, radiological, and biological hazards.1
`In 2019, he sued sixteen defendants in the district court,
`alleging patent infringement by their development and
`manufacturing of certain devices. The district court dis-
`missed the suit without prejudice, and this court affirmed
`the dismissal “on the ground of frivolousness” because Mr.
`Golden’s complaint “offer[ed] only vague generalities and
`block quotes of statutes, cases and treatises, but nowhere
`point[ed] us to any nonfrivolous allegations of infringement
`of any claim by any actual product made, used, or sold by
`any defendant.” Golden v. Apple Inc., 819 F. App’x 930, 931
`(Fed. Cir. 2020).
`On January 5, 2021, in Case No. 22-1229, Mr. Golden
`again sued the same sixteen defendants from the 2019 case
`for patent infringement (“the Apple case”). He initially
`filed the same over-300-page complaint held to be frivolous
`in the 2019 case. After the magistrate judge imposed a 35
`page limit on the complaint, Mr. Golden filed a shortened
`complaint complying with the restriction. On January 26,
`2021, in Case No. 22-1267, Mr. Golden separately sued
`Google LLC for patent infringement (“the Google case”).
`The magistrate judge reviewed the complaints in both
`cases and recommended summary dismissal with prejudice
`without issuance of service of process or leave to amend
`and monetary sanctions for the filing of frivolous litigation.
`In both cases, the district court adopted the magistrate
`judge’s recommendations in part. In the Apple case, the
`district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous without
`the issuance of service of process but declined to dismiss
`with prejudice. Additionally, the district court lifted the
`page restriction for an amended complaint. In the Google
`case, the district court dismissed the complaint with
`
`1 The patents at issue in these cases are U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,385,497; 9,096,189; 9,589,439; 10,163,287 and Reis-
`sue Patent Nos. RE43,891 and RE43,990.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1229 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`4
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`prejudice and without the issuance of service of process.
`Mr. Golden appeals the district court decisions in both
`cases. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`On appeal, Mr. Golden has filed briefs, while the defend-
`ants have not filed responsive briefs.
`DISCUSSION
`Under the pleading standards set forth in Bell Atlantic
`Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iq-
`bal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a court must dismiss a complaint
`if it fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief
`that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
`This standard “requires more than labels and conclusions,
`and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of ac-
`tion will not do.” Id. at 555 (citation omitted). A plaintiff
`must allege facts that give rise to “more than a sheer pos-
`sibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556
`U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). In the patent context, this
`court has explained that a plaintiff need not “plead facts
`establishing that each element of an asserted claim is met,”
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys. Pat.
`Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing McZeal
`v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`2007)), but must plead “‘enough fact[s] to raise a reasona-
`ble expectation that discovery will reveal’ that the defend-
`ant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 1341
`(alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
`We review the district court’s dismissal of the complaint de
`novo. Anand v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 754 F.3d 195,
`198 (4th Cir. 2014).
`In the Apple case, the district court dismissed the dock-
`eted complaint as frivolous after finding that Mr. Golden
`“failed to include factual allegations beyond the identities
`of the Defendants, reference to the alleged infringing de-
`vices, and the alleged infringed-upon patents.” Dist. Ct.
`Op. at 4–5. We agree with the district court: the docketed
`complaint is nothing more than a list of patent claims and
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1229 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`5
`
`accused products manufactured by each defendant for each
`asserted patent. Mr. Golden contends that his original
`complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to sup-
`port his claims. However, he concedes that the rejected
`original complaint was identical to the one that this court
`deemed frivolous in the 2019 case. His effort to relitigate
`the sufficiency of the original complaint is precluded under
`the doctrine of res judicata. See Arizona v. California, 530
`U.S. 392, 412 (2000) (“[I]f a court is on notice that it has
`previously decided the issue presented, the court may dis-
`miss the action sua sponte, even though [a preclusion] de-
`fense has not been raised.”). Mr. Golden does not argue
`that the docketed complaint contains factual allegations
`beyond those contained in his original complaint or that
`the allegations in the docketed complaint do anything be-
`yond listing the alleged infringed-upon patent claims and
`the alleged infringing devices. This is plainly insufficient.
`We see no error in the district court’s without prejudice dis-
`missal of the Apple case.
`In the Google case, the district court again concluded
`that Mr. Golden’s complaint was frivolous. Here, however,
`Mr. Golden’s complaint includes a detailed claim chart
`mapping features of an accused product, the Google Pixel 5
`Smartphone, to independent claims from U.S. Patent Nos.
`10,163,287, 9,589,439, and 9,069,189. The district court
`discounted this claim chart because it “contains the exact
`same language as the claim charts previously rejected by
`the Federal Circuit [in the 2019 case], although Google
`Pixel 5 Smartphone appears in the far left column instead
`of Apple.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 4. But to the extent that the
`chart includes the “exact same language” as previously re-
`jected charts, it is simply the language of the independent
`claims being mapped to. The key column describing the
`infringing nature of the accused products is not the same
`as the complaint held frivolous in the 2019 case. It at-
`tempts—whether successfully or not—to map claim
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1229 Document: 16 Page: 6 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`6
`
`GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
`
`limitations to infringing product features, and it does so in
`a relatively straightforward manner.
`We conclude that the district court’s decision in the
`Google case is not correct with respect to at least the three
`claims mapped out in the claim chart. Mr. Golden has
`made efforts to identify exactly how the accused products
`meet the limitations of his claims in this chart. On remand,
`the district court should allow the complaint to be filed and
`request service of process. Our decision does not preclude
`subsequent motions to dismiss by the defendant for failure
`to state a claim or for summary judgment. We express no
`opinion as to the adequacy of the complaint or claim chart
`except that it is not facially frivolous.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
`dismissal in Case No. 22-1229, vacate the dismissal in
`Case No. 22-1267, and remand for further proceedings con-
`sistent with this opinion.
`CASE NO. 22-1229 AFFIRMED
`CASE NO. 22-1267 VACATED AND REMANDED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`