Golden v. Google LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:22-cv-05246
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Golden v. Google LLC, Judge Gilliam granted Google’s dismissal motion with leave to amend because the patent-infringement complaint was inadequately pleaded.
Larry Golden and Google LLC. Golden may amend the complaint within 28 days, but may not file other documents without advance court permission unless the court orders otherwise.
What happened
Larry Golden, representing himself, sued Google LLC for allegedly infringing three patents through Google smartphones and related software. Google asked the court to dismiss the complaint.
The court found that Golden alleged infringement only if users downloaded the Android Team Awareness Kit application, which Golden said Google did not make or preinstall. Because the complaint did not adequately allege direct infringement, it also did not adequately allege indirect infringement.
In Golden v. Google LLC, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Google’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court denied as moot, without prejudice, the pending cross-motion for summary judgment, motion for permanent injunctive relief, and motions to strike.
The detailed version
- Golden v. Google LLC · No. 3:22-cv-05246
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
Larry Golden, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Google LLC infringed three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,163,287, 9,589,439, and 9,096,189. He alleged that several Google smartphones infringed the patents and that Google sold a material component of a patented device. He also alleged that Google jointly infringed with Apple and Qualcomm.
Google moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not adequately allege either direct or indirect patent infringement. Golden responded with an opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment. The opinion also addressed Google’s motion to strike, Golden’s motion for permanent injunctive relief, and Golden’s cross-motion to strike.
Direct infringement
The court agreed with Google that Golden’s allegations described Google devices as infringing only after an end user downloaded the Android Team Awareness Kit application, known as ATAK. Golden’s complaint stated that Google did not make ATAK and did not allege that ATAK came preinstalled on Google phones.
The court held that a device does not infringe a patent merely because it could be modified to operate in an infringing way. It therefore found that Golden failed to adequately allege direct infringement by Google.
Indirect infringement
Indirect patent infringement includes inducement and contributory infringement. The court explained that either type requires an underlying act of direct infringement. Because Golden did not adequately allege direct infringement, the court found that he also failed to allege indirect infringement.
Leave to amend and dispositions
Google asked the court to deny permission to amend, arguing that amendment would be futile. The court stated that it could not conclude at that stage that amendment necessarily would be futile. It therefore granted Google’s motion to dismiss with leave for Golden to amend and ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 28 days of the order.
The court denied as moot, without prejudice to refiling if the case proceeded beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage, Google’s motion to strike, Golden’s cross-motion for summary judgment, Golden’s motion for permanent injunctive relief, and Golden’s cross-motion to strike.
The court separately struck Docket Nos. 36, 39, and 40 because the filings did not comply with the district’s local rules. Unless the court ordered otherwise, Golden could not file documents other than the amended complaint without advance court permission.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.