IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Dismissal affirmed in tactical cell phone dispute, (Jun 25, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Infringement claims based around the use of cell phones as chemical/biological/radiological detector units failed because the accused products lacked the patented functionality as sold, and could obtain that functionality only by post-sale modification.

A California district court properly determined that inventor Larry Golden failed to plausibly allege infringement of his patents on a chemical/biological/radiological detector unit by Google’s smartphone products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The smartphones lacked the accused functionality at the time of sale and only gained it after third-party modification (Golden v. Google LLC, No. 24-2024 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 25, 2025)).

Larry Golden was the owner and inventor of U.S. Patents Nos. 10,163,287 (the ’287 patent), 9,589,439 (the ’439 patent), 9,096,189 (the ’189 patent), and 10,984,619 (the ’619 patent), all of which shared a specification and were pertained to “a chemical/biological/radiological detector unit with a disabling locking system for protecting products... from terrorist activity, and also for preventing unauthorized access to and tampering with the storage and transport of ordnance and weapons.”

Golden, acting pro se, brought suit for infringement against Google, LLC (Google), alleging that several models of Google’s Pixel smartphone products infringed his patents. The trial court granted Google’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Golden’s amended complaint failed to state claims for direct, indirect, joint, or willful infringement. Golden appealed.

Direct infringement. Golden argued that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for direct infringement because he provided factual allegations to show that Google manufactured the allegedly infringing smart phones. The Federal Circuit explained that this was not the dispute. The trial court had not found that Google did not manufacture the Pixel phones, it had found that even when taking all of the allegations in the complaint as true, it was alleged only that Google’s products could be modified post-sale by others. It was not alleged that the phones possessed the claimed detector/sensor functionality when they were sold by Google, so the trial court did not err in finding that Golden had not stated a claim against Google for direct infringement.

Indirect and willful infringement. The appeals court also found that because Golden failed to state a claim for direct infringement, his claims for indirect and willful infringement necessarily failed as well.

Joint infringement. The court held that a theory of joint infringement failed because there were no allegations in the complaint showing that Google either exercised “direction and control” over the other alleged joint infringers or that they constituted a joint enterprise. Absent any allegations directed to this element, the trial court did not err in finding that Golden had failed to state a claim for joint infringement.

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal as to all claims.

The Case is No. 24-2024.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Larry Golden, pro se. Matthew Warren (Warren Kash Warren LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Google LLC

Cases: Patent FedCirNews CaliforniaNews