NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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, Washington, 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: 1 Filed: 02/12/2024
2 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 

PER CURIAM. 

Larry Golden filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics 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 Procedure 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 defendants. 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: 2 Filed: 02/12/2024
GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 3

specifications and describe “a chemical/biological/radiological detector unit with a disabling locking system for protecting 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 detectors” 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 Samsung’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, arguing 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 beyond 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: 3 Filed: 02/12/2024
4 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 

allege that Samsung committed inducement or contributory infringement, even if its smartphones were in fact 

modified by others post-sale to have the accused functionality. 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 functionalities included in Samsung’s products are wholly unsupported and implausible on their face.” Golden, 2023 WL 

3919466, at *2. Mr. Golden filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Appx10. Mr. Golden then timely 

appealed. Appx10. 

II

We apply regional circuit law on the standard for review 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 review 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 complaint must state “well-pleaded facts, not legal conclusions, 

that ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’” Whitaker 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 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). “[A] pro se complaint . . . 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 complaint.

Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 4 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 alleging 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 district 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 complaint against Google in a separate proceeding was “not facially 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 Samsung’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-allegation 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 committed 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 detector/sensor functionality, either literally or by equivalents. 

Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 5 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/sensor functionality, but each is deficient for infringement 

even at the pleading stage. Regarding ATAK, the complaint itself indicates that plugins and app-specific software, not developed by Samsung and only available 

“throughout the DoD,” are required for the accused detector/sensor functionality. Appx112 ¶ 55; Appx119, 127. Regarding 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 conceivably 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 ‘biosensors’”: 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 allegations that, when taken as true, articulate why it is plausible 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: 6 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 infringement, they are likewise insufficient to state a plausible 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 functionality, 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 possible to alter it in a way that would satisfy all the limitations 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 noninfringing uses,” as required to establish contributory infringement 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, improperly reduced the scope of his inventions to a single, generalized 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 directly on the complaint and demonstrate its sufficiency, a 

matter we decide de novo on appeal. In any event, we disagree with Mr. Golden’s allegation about what the district 

court did.

Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 7 Filed: 02/12/2024
8 GOLDEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 

In the district court’s statement that Mr. Golden appears 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 infringement allegations as stated in his complaint. It was 

on that basis that the court concluded that “[t]he allegations 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 complaint. We need not address the district court’s alternative 

ground for dismissal—that Mr. Golden’s suit against Samsung was precluded because Mr. Golden had already unsuccessfully 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

Case: 23-2120 Document: 28 Page: 8 Filed: 02/12/2024