6:19-cv-02557-DCC Date Filed 01/27/20 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`GREENVILLE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC
`
`
`
` ORDER
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Larry Golden,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics USA, )
`LG Electronics USA Inc.,
`
`)
`Qualcomm Inc., Motorola Solutions
`)
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation, AT&T
`)
`Inc., Verizon Corporate Services
`)
`Group, Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile
`)
`USA Inc., Ford Global Technologies
`)
`LLC, Fairway Ford Lincoln of
`
`)
`Greenville, General Motors Company, )
`Kevin Whitaker Chevrolet, FCA US
`)
`LLC, Big O Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram, )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`________________________________ )
`
`
`Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,1 brings this action alleging claims for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants. ECF No. 16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
`
`and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States
`
`Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
`
`Recommendation (“Report”). On January 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
`
`recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of
`
`service of process. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. ECF No. 30.
`
`
`1 Plaintiff paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`GREENVILLE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC
`
`
`
` ORDER
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Larry Golden,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics USA, )
`LG Electronics USA Inc.,
`
`)
`Qualcomm Inc., Motorola Solutions
`)
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation, AT&T
`)
`Inc., Verizon Corporate Services
`)
`Group, Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile
`)
`USA Inc., Ford Global Technologies
`)
`LLC, Fairway Ford Lincoln of
`
`)
`Greenville, General Motors Company, )
`Kevin Whitaker Chevrolet, FCA US
`)
`LLC, Big O Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram, )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`________________________________ )
`
`
`Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,1 brings this action alleging claims for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants. ECF No. 16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
`
`and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States
`
`Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
`
`Recommendation (“Report”). On January 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
`
`recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of
`
`service of process. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. ECF No. 30.
`
`
`1 Plaintiff paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1.
`
`
`
`6:19-cv-02557-DCC Date Filed 01/27/20 Entry Number 32 Page 2 of 6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
`
`recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
`
`determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
`
`Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
`
`Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
`
`modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
`
`recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
`
`The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
`
`Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
`
`that “in the absence of timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo
`
`review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
`
`record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the present action as duplicative
`
`of another ongoing action in the Court of Federal Claims.2 Plaintiff makes various
`
`objections, which the Court will address in turn.
`
`
`2 As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is engaged in ongoing patent litigation
`in the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office. See Golden v. United States, C/A No. 1:19-cv-
`0104-EGB (Fed. Cl.), appeal pending C/A No. 19-2134 (Fed. Cir.); Golden v. United
`States, C/A No 1:13-cv-00307-SGB, stayed pending patent review, doc. 186 (Fed. Cl.)
`(“Case
`Number
`1”);
`RE
`43,990,
`In
`re
`Patent
`Number
`https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair# (choose patent number, enter RE43990, and
`then click Image File Wrapper) (last visited January 22, 2020). The Court may take
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`6:19-cv-02557-DCC Date Filed 01/27/20 Entry Number 32 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`The Magistrate Judge provides a thorough recitation of the facts and procedural
`
`history which the Court incorporates by reference.3 Briefly summarizing the relevant
`
`facts, Plaintiff sues various corporations and business entities that he asserts have
`
`infringed on his patents, including: 10,163,287 ; 9,589,439; 9,096,189; RE43,990
`
`RE43,891; and 7,385,497. ECF Nos. 16; 16-1; 16-3; 16-4; 16-5; 16-6; 16-7; 16-8. These
`
`patents are entitled “multi sensor detection and lock disabling system” and “multi sensor
`
`detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system.” ECF Nos. 16; 16-1; 16-3; 16-4; 16-5;
`
`16-6; 16-7; 16-8. The patents appear to involve technology that can be used to detect
`
`explosives/radiation and then disable vehicles or other apparatuses wherein the
`
`explosives/radiation are detected. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants
`
`have infringed on his patents, a permanent injunction enjoining the infringing activity by
`
`Defendants, and money damages. ECF No. 16-1 at 252.
`
`
`
`Upon de novo review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court
`
`finds that this action should be dismissed as duplicative of Plaintiff’s Case Number 1.
`
`That action involves the same patents and the alleged infringement is substantially
`
`identical.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`judicial notice of these other cases. See Phillips v. Pitt Cty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176,
`180 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts “may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record.”);
`Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (“We note that ‘[t]he
`most frequent use of judicial notice . . . is in noticing the content of court records.’”).
`3 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is more than 250 pages in
`length and includes more than 700 pages of attachments. ECF No. 16.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`6:19-cv-02557-DCC Date Filed 01/27/20 Entry Number 32 Page 4 of 6
`
`Plaintiff contends that the purported infringement is not substantially identical. He
`
`states that he “is bringing this action because the Plaintiffs communication devices (does
`
`not include the communication devices use as ‘detection devices’ as claimed in Case
`
`Number 1) and stall, stop and vehicle slowdown systems (does not include the stopping
`
`of vehicles with the use of electromagnetic pulse as claimed in Case Number 1) are being
`
`manufactured, sold, used, and offered for sale by the alleged infringers as new and
`
`improved desktop computers, new and improved PDAs, PCs, laptops, cell phones,
`
`tablets, smartphones and smartwatches, and new and improved stall, stop, and vehicle
`
`slowdown systems etc.” ECF No. 30 at 6.
`
`In Plaintiff’s Final Amended Complaint in Case Number 1, he asserts that the
`
`Government has infringed upon his patents related to communications devices. C/A No.
`
`1:13-cv-00307-EGB (ECF No. 120 at 14–16). Moreover, Case Number 1 and the present
`
`action involve the same patents, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s pleadings and claims charts.4
`
`Accordingly, this objection is overruled.
`
`Plaintiff further objects to the dismissal of his case because he claims that he is
`
`barred from bringing a patent infringement case against a private party and the
`
`Government in the same court. This objection has no basis in the law and is overruled.5
`
`
`4 Plaintiff contends that this litigation does not involve the same patents as Case
`Number 1. He has provided no support this argument and the evidence presented by
`Plaintiff contradicts this assertion.
`5 To the extent Plaintiff argues that the Defendants in the present action are
`immune from suit in the Court of Federal Claims, has not pointed to, and the Court has
`been unable to find, any authority to support a theory that these Defendants would be
`treated differently in this Court.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`6:19-cv-02557-DCC Date Filed 01/27/20 Entry Number 32 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues in his objections that the Defendants in the present action are not
`
`the same as the Defendant in Case Number 1. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, this
`
`action involves third parties as infringers rather than the Government; however, the filings
`
`make clear that the Defendants are third-party actors for the Government’s alleged
`
`infringing actions. Accordingly, the Court finds this action should be dismissed as
`
`duplicative because Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendants are infringing on the same
`
`patents in the same manner as asserted in Case Number 1. See Nexsen Pruet, LLC v.
`
`Westport Ins. Corp., C/A No. 3:10-cv-00895-JFA, 2010 WL 3169378, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug.
`
`5, 2010) (generally, a case pending in federal court “may be dismissed for reasons of
`
`wise judicial administration whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending
`
`in another federal court” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Motley Rice, LLC v.
`
`Baldwin & Baldwin, LLP, 518 F. Supp. 2d 688, 697 (D.S.C. 2007))); New Beckley Mining
`
`Corp. v. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 946 F.2d 1072, 1073 (4th Cir. 1991)
`
`(suits are considered parallel if “substantially the same parties litigate substantially the
`
`same issues in different forums” (citing LaDuke v. Burlington N. R.R., 879 F.2d 1556,
`
`1559 (7th Cir. 1989))); Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 627, 635
`
`(E.D. Va. 2006) (noting that “[m]ost prominent among the elements of systemic integrity
`
`are judicial economy and the avoidance of inconsistent judgments.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`6:19-cv-02557-DCC Date Filed 01/27/20 Entry Number 32 Page 6 of 6
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED6 without prejudice7 and without
`
`issuance of service of process.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 27, 2020
`Spartanburg, South Carolina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
`
`The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
`
`of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
`
`
`6 The Court finds Plaintiff should not be given a second opportunity to amend his
`complaint in the instant matter because any amendment would be futile in light of the
`pending duplicative litigation. See Goode v. Cent. Virginia Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d
`619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); see also In re PEC Solutions, Inc. Sec. Litig., 418 F. 3d 379, 391
`(4th Cir. 2005) (“Leave to amend need not be given when amendment would be futile.”).
`7 In his objections, Plaintiff states that his claims will time barred if he is not allowed
`to proceed in this action. He has provided no support for this conclusory statement.
`6
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
