Lock Patent Owner Strikes Out at CAFC in Suit Against Intel

“The conclusory allegations in this case are insufficient to identify what products infringe and how those products infringe Mr. Golden’s patents and, accordingly, fail to ‘place [Intel] on notice of what activity . . .is being accused of infringement.’” – CAFC

Federal CircuitThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a district court’s ruling dismissing antitrust and patent infringement claims brought by a pro se patent owner against Intel.

Larry Golden owns a family of patents that cover a system for locking, unlocking or disabling locks on vehicles upon detection of chemical or biological hazards. Golden has also unsuccessfully sued Apple and the U.S. Government for infringement of the patents. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice, granting Intel’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and his antitrust claims for lack of Article III and antitrust standing under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Golden’s argument was that Intel is monopolizing the U.S. market for laptops, desktop PCs, and CPUs by infringing his patents and that Intel’s exclusionary tactics have made it possible for them to maintain their monopoly.  The CAFC explained that these allegations were not sufficient to establish Article III standing:

“We agree with the district court that Mr. Golden’s vague, conclusory allegations as to antitrust violations (without specifically identifying the supposed illegal conduct) and allegations of injury (again without specifying the specific injury) are not adequate to allege either Article III standing or antitrust injury.”

As to Golden’s patent infringement claims, the CAFC called his complaint “deficient.” The court said his claim charts suggest his patents cover generic PCs and CPUs, with no limitations, and that the allegations of infringement are not even conclusory, much less sufficient to satisfy the relevant standard under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. “The conclusory allegations in this case are insufficient to identify what products infringe and how those products infringe Mr. Golden’s patents and, accordingly, fail to “place [Intel] on notice of what activity . . .is being accused of infringement,” said the CAFC.

Lastly, Golden said the district court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice, but the CAFC said he failed to explain how it would serve him were he allowed to amend his complaint. The decision said: “Mr. Golden’s complaint appears to suggest he believes he has broad patent claims covering general Central Processing Units (CPUs) and laptop and desktop PCs…but the claims are not for CPUs or PCs, but for ones that can perform specific functions. Mr. Golden has not argued how he could amend his complaint to identify specific Intel products that infringe his patent claims.”



Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

4 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Pro Se]
    Pro Se
    May 7, 2023 10:53 pm

    Artistry, fortunately, still lives in America:

    My new BookCast on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-NNI9ARQk

    Totally “fiction”.

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    May 6, 2023 11:00 pm

    While going pro se can work for those rare folks willing to do the months of in-depth research (including investing in Gene’s $99 Invent + Patent System) when it comes to obtaining one or more patents (always have a continuation on file — always) (and Examiners are PTO-required — and most are ready and willing — to give you a hand if obtaining a patent on your invention is possible), litigation is something else entirely.

    Far, far more complex, with unseen case-killer landmines everywhere, it should only be undertaken by patent attorneys.

    And even more specifically, successful litigation patent attorneys.

    Otherwise, my fellow pro se inventors, your chances of success are virtually zip.


    I would never do — and have never done — my own litigation.

    You shouldn’t either.

    Don’t lose your patent/s to the pro se litigation buzz saw.

  • [Avatar for Pro Se]
    Pro Se
    May 6, 2023 08:25 am

    The culture of the DC and CAFC these days are so anti-patent, it’s amazing why America is so confused on why global interests no longer see the U.S. as a “stable” location for financial security:

    Golden never had an opportunity to build the case, reach full discovery, find the accused products technical specs from Intel’s build plans, U.S. lawyers and these lawyer/judges have destroyed American engineering aspects of IP.

    Golden never had a chance, Intel? Didn’t Intel just enjoy some “new” USPTO PTAB joinder privilege?

    There’s a silent “system” in place that works through 3rd party “neutral” lawyers. I wont get into how I’ve discovered how this works, but trust me, unless you’re an entity that can counter-operate within this silent system, any can can be “bribed” away at will.

    Again, read clear: Lawyers looking out for Lawyers, Judges are in this network, and the sad part? Everyone, that are IP lawyers right now, today, knows about it, and they also are part of this “Blue-Wall of Silence” legal Bar version of what cops do for each other to hide illicit and illegal activity.

    And look where America sit: generic products and services, companies copying companies, a few status-quo “darlings” allowed to prance around and trend-set.

    Everywhere else: Lawyers looking out for lawyers, no one is inventing in America anymore, DC and CAFC want cases fully technically explained using information that can only be acquired in discovery.

    The Temu App is trending on the App Stores: Enjoy your new reality USPTO:

    Silly games, silly prize.

  • [Avatar for mike]
    May 5, 2023 11:21 pm

    Come on Golden, get the right counsel so you won’t make legitimate pro se inventors look bad.