Case: 20-1508 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
AT&T INC., BIG O DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM,
FCA US LLC, FAIRWAY FORD LINCOLN OF
GREENVILLE, FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, KEVIN
WHITAKER CHEVROLET, LG ELECTRONICS USA
INC, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., PANASONIC
CORPORATION, QUALCOMM, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS USA, SPRINT CORPORATION, T-
MOBILE USA, INC., VERIZON CORPORATE
SERVICES GROUP,
Defendants
______________________
2020-1508
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina in No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC,
Judge Donald C. Coggins Jr.
______________________
Case: 20-1508 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2020
2 GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
Decided: September 3, 2020
______________________
LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
JOHN FRANKLIN MORROW, JR., Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP, Winston-Salem, NC, for defendant-appellee.
Also represented by ANA FRIEDMAN.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, LINN and TARANTO, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Larry Golden, pro se plaintiff-appellant, sued fifteen
defendants in the District Court for the District of South
Carolina, alleging patent infringement by the defendants’
development and manufacturing of communicating, moni-
toring, detecting, and controlling (“CMDC”) devices. Mag-
istrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald issued an Order notifying
Golden that his complaint was subject to summary dismis-
sal for frivolousness. After Golden amended his complaint,
the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without
prejudice and without service of process because the case
was duplicative of parallel proceedings Golden brought
against the government in the Court of Federal Claims.
Golden objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Rec-
ommendation, arguing that the present action was not du-
plicative but was instead a separate action against non-
governmental entities for patent infringement. The dis-
trict court reviewed the record and adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. Golden appeals. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
The district court concluded that because the present
case and the earlier case against the government involved
the same patents, that was enough to find the action dupli-
cative. Golden argues on appeal that what the district
Case: 20-1508 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2020
GOLDEN v. APPLE INC. 3
court failed to appreciate is that while the earlier action
asserted unfair acts by the government, the present action
allegedly involves the infringing acts of third parties unre-
lated to any activities of the government. Even if Golden
is correct, however, in asserting that the present action is
not duplicative and therefore should not have been dis-
missed on that ground, we “may affirm a judgment of a dis-
trict court on any ground the law and the record will
support so long as that ground would not expand the relief
granted.” Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. TorPharm, Inc.,
153 F.3d
1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Indeed, we may dismiss a case
for lack of jurisdiction where the complaint is “wholly in-
substantial and frivolous.” First Data Corp. v. Inselberg,
870 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Arbaugh v.
Y & H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006)).
Allegations of direct infringement are subject to the
pleading standards established by Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556
U.S. 662 (2009). Under this standard, 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 “facial plausibility” standard requires “more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Id. at 555.
Rather, it requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up
to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678; see Twombly,
550 U.S.
at 555 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.”). Although courts do
not require “heightened fact pleading of specifics,”
Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570, a plaintiff must allege “‘enough
fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal’ that the defendant is liable for the misconduct al-
leged.” In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys.
Pat. Litig.,
681 F.3d 1323, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (alteration
in original) (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556).
Case: 20-1508 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2020
4 GOLDEN v. APPLE INC.
Golden’s amended complaint here, like his initial com-
plaint, even if not duplicative of the earlier filed action
against the government, “contains only conclusory formu-
laic recitations of the elements of patent infringement as to
each defendant.” Magistrate Judge Initial Order at 5,
Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv-02557 (D.S.C. Oct. 1,
2019), ECF No. 12. Count I of Golden’s Amended Com-
plaint, for example, merely states that “at least one of the
defendants named in this complaint has infringed at least
independent claim 4 & 5 of the ’287 patent,” Complaint at
¶ 156, Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv-02557 (D.S.C. Oct.
15, 2019), ECF No. 16-1, followed by generalized state-
ments of infringement by each defendant,
id. at ¶¶ 157–
204, and similar broad infringement allegations for each of
Golden’s other patents,
id. at ¶¶ 205–384. The complaint
itself offers only vague generalities and block quotes of
statutes, cases and treatises, but nowhere points us to any
nonfrivolous allegations of infringement of any claim by
any actual product made, used, or sold by any defendant.
The complaint also references “claim charts” for each
defendant and each patent. E.g.,
id., ECF No. 16-14. These
claim charts present a dizzying array of disorganized as-
sertions over several hundred pages, disingenuously using
the words of the claims to generally describe cryptically
identified structures. Although Golden appeals pro se and
is therefore entitled to a certain leeway in interpreting his
complaint, we agree with the magistrate judge’s conclusion
that “the plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations fail to
state a claim for relief.” Magistrate Judge Initial Order at
5.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismis-
sal without prejudice and without service of process, not on
the basis of duplicity, but on the ground of frivolousness.
AFFIRMED
Case: 20-1508 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2020
GOLDEN v. APPLE INC. 5
COSTS
No costs.
