IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Dismissal of inventor’s suit against Samsung affirmed cell phone sensor dispute, (Feb 12, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for infringement were properly dismissed because the complaint only alleged that the accused product could be modified post-sale in order to infringe.

A California district court properly dismissed an inventor’s patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics based on sensors in its smartphone products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The complaint did not allege that the Samsung products themselves infringed, but only that they could be modified to infringe. The complaint also lacked allegations to plausibly support induced or contributory infringement claims (Golden v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. , February 12, 2024, per curiam).

Larry Golden was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 10,163,287 (the ’287 patent), 9,589,439 (the ’439 patent), and 9,096,189 (the ’189 patent), which shared materially identical specifications and claimed systems for locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock when a sensor detects a chemical, radiological, or explosive agent.

Golden brought suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung), alleging infringement by Samsung phones based on a Department of Defense software package called the “Android Team Awareness Kit”, through add-on devices or modifications which used the phone’s camera, and through nine “standard sensors” which could be used as “biosensors.” Samsung moved to dismiss and the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, because the claims were precluded based on a prior suit in which Golden had unsuccessfully pursued the same claims against the United States. Golden appealed.

Patent infringement. The court held that Golden failed to state a claim for patent infringement because the complaint did not allege that the Samsung products themselves infringed, but only that they could be used to infringe with post-sale modifications and additional software. Golden had not alleged that Samsung possessed the requisite knowledge of the potential infringement to support a claim for induced or contributory infringement, and did not plead that the products lacked substantial noninfringing uses.

Although Golden pointed out several alleged errors in the trial court’s reasoning, including improperly reducing the scope of the claims, this was not determinative because the appellate court made its own de novo decision that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The court affirmed the dismissal on the failure to state a claim ground and therefore did not reach the claim preclusion ground.

The Case is No. 23-2120.

Attorneys: Larry Golden, pro se. Richard L. Rainey (Covington & Burling LLP) for Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Companies: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews CaliforniaNews