6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`GREENVILLE DIVISION
`
` Case No.: 6:20-cv-04353-JD-KFM
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Larry Golden,
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`Apple Inc.; Samsung Electronics USA; LG
`Electronics USA, Inc.; Qualcomm Inc.,
`Motorola Solutions, Inc.; Panasonic
`Corporation; AT&T Inc.; Verizon
`Corporation Service 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,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
`
`Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald (“Report and Recommendation” or “Report”), made in accordance
`
`with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1
`
`Plaintiff Larry Golden (“Golden” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this Complaint alleging
`
`patent infringement claims against the captioned Defendants. (DE 10.)
`
`Specifically, Golden asserts that the Defendants have infringed on the following patents:
`
`10,163,287 (‘287 patent); 9,589,439 (‘439 patent); 9,096,189 (‘189 patent); RE43,990 (‘990
`
`
`1
`The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
`determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-
`71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
`Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28
`U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 2 of 7
`
`patent); RE43,891 (‘891 patent); and 7,385,497 (‘497 patent) (DE 10; 10-1; 10-2; 10-3; 10-4; 10-
`
`5; 10-6.) These patents are entitled “multi sensor detection and lock disabling system” and “multi
`
`sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system.” (DE 10; 10-1; 10-2; 10-3; 10-4; 10-5;
`
`10-6.) The patents appear to involve technology that can be used to detect explosives/radiation
`
`and then disable vehicles or other equipment wherein the explosives/radiation are detected. The
`
`Plaintiff’s complaint alleges infringement of each patent by each Defendant in formulaic
`
`recitations of the elements of patent infringement. (DE 10.) For relief, the Plaintiff seeks a
`
`declaratory judgment that the Defendants have infringed on his patents, a permanent injunction
`
`enjoining the infringing activity by the Defendants, as well as money damages. (DE 10, pp. 6, 33.)
`
`This Court possesses the inherent authority to review the pro se complaint to ensure that
`
`subject matter jurisdiction exists and that a case is not frivolous, even if the pleading is not subject
`
`to the pre-screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296,
`
`307–08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’ action,
`
`but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory
`
`provision.”); Ross v. Baron, 493 F. App’x 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (finding that
`
`“frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, even
`
`when the filing fee has been paid . . . [and] because a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
`
`an obviously frivolous complaint, dismissal prior to service of process is permitted.” (citations
`
`omitted)).
`
`Accordingly, on February 5, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report given his initial
`
`review of the pleadings. The Report recommended summary dismissal of the complaint with
`
`prejudice and without issuance of service of process or leave to amend his complaint. The Report
`
`further recommended that this Court consider the entry of sanctions in the amount of $400.00
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 3 of 7
`
`against Golden because he has continued to file frivolous litigation in this Court.2 (DE 20.) In
`
`support of the Magistrate’s recommendation, the Report took judicial notice that the instant matter
`
`represents Golden’s fifth unsuccessful action regarding his patents (and infringing actions). See
`
`Golden v. Apple, Inc., et al., C/A No. 6:20-cv-02270-JD (D.S.C.) (“Case Number 4”); Golden v.
`
`Apple Inc., et al., C/A No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC, 2020 WL 415896 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2020), aff’d
`
`C/A No. 20-1508, --- F. App’x ---, 2020 WL 5240656 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2020) (“Case Number
`
`3”); Golden v. United States, C/A No. 1:19-cv-00104-EGB (Fed. Cl.), dismissal aff’d 955 F.3d
`
`981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Case Number 2”); Golden v. United States, C/A No 1:13-cv-00307- SGB,
`
`stayed pending patent review, at doc. 186 (Fed. Cl.) (“Case Number 1”); and In re Patent Number
`
`RE 43,990, https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair# (choose patent number, enter RE43990, and
`
`then click Image File Wrapper) (last visited September 26, 2021), petition denied June 25, 2020.
`
`The instant complaint seeks damages against many of the same defendants as named in Case
`
`Number 3 and Case Number 4; however, it appears that this action represents Golden’s attempt to
`
`re-litigate the claims from Case Number 3 because Case Number 3 was dismissed as frivolous
`
`without prejudice.
`
`Accordingly, the Report recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint because inter alia
`
`Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims are premised on unsuccessful patent infringements claims
`
`that have been adjudicated, and even if they were valid, his complaint still fails because “the
`
`plaintiff has failed to include factual allegations beyond the identities of the defendants, reference
`
`to the alleged infringing devices, and the alleged infringed-upon patents.” (DE 20, p. 8.)
`
`
`2
`Although this action represents Golden’s third frivolous action based upon alleged patent
`infringement (and fifth case overall) and the Report recommends that this Court sanction Golden $400.00,
`this Court declines to order sanctions at this time. However, in the event Golden attempts to file another
`frivolous action in this Court, the Court will consider the imposition of sanctions as warranted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 4 of 7
`
`Golden filed an objection to the Report on February 11, 2021 (DE 23); however, to be
`
`actionable, objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
`
`objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
`
`review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,
`
`727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). “The Supreme Court has expressly upheld the validity of
`
`such a waiver rule, explaining that ‘the filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the
`
`district judge to focus attention on those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the
`
`parties’ dispute.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (2005) (citing
`
`Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (emphasis added)). In the absence of specific objections to
`
`the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this Court is not required to give any
`
`explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
`
`1983).
`
`Plaintiff makes the following “objections”3 to the Report, which the Court will discuss
`
`seriatim. First, Golden objects to the Report’s dismissal of the action as frivolous because he
`
`contends he is merely refiling a lawsuit with the deficiencies corrected. Upon review, however,
`
`Golden has not cured the frivolousness of his allegations. In reviewing a complaint for
`
`frivolousness or malice, the Court looks to see whether the Complaint raises an indisputably
`
`meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or
`
`delusional scenarios. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). As noted by this Court
`
`previously, the Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims in this action are subject to dismissal because
`
`the Plaintiff has failed to include factual allegations beyond the identities of the Defendants,
`
`
`3
`Although Golden filed a 35-page Objection, most of the document discusses social editorials and
`citations to laws that do not focus this Court on the factual and legal issues at the heart of the parties’ dispute
`and are, therefore, overruled.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 5 of 7
`
`reference to the alleged infringing devices, and the alleged infringed-upon patents. (DE 10; see
`
`also Golden v. Apple, Inc., et al., 819 F. App’x at 931 (affirming in Case Number 3 the dismissal
`
`of patent infringement claims because the complaint contained 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”). For
`
`instance, Golden’s amended complaint alleges in Count I that
`
`On information and belief, Apple is jointly, directly, indirectly and/or under the
`‘doctrine of equivalents’, infringing at least claim 5 of the ‘287 patent. The alleged
`infringing products are: iPhone 7 series, iPhone 8 series, iPhone X series, iPhone
`XS series, iPhone XR series, iPhone 11 series, iPhone 12 series and Apple Watch
`series 3, 4, & 5.
`
`(DE 10, ¶ 28.) Golden also attached the ‘287 Patent to his complaint as an exhibit but offers no
`
`additional facts regarding the same. However, simply naming a product and providing a
`
`conclusory statement that it infringes a patent is insufficient to meet the “plausibility” standard set
`
`forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Although
`
`Golden cites a district court opinion in the Central District of California (albeit not binding
`
`precedence) to support his claim that his pleadings are sufficient because he attached his patents
`
`just as the plaintiff in that case, his reliance and application of this authority misses the mark. See
`
`InCom Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., No. CV15-3011 PSG (MRWx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319,
`
`at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (where the district court found that plaintiff’s amended complaint
`
`did more than name a product and baldly conclude that it infringes plaintiff’s patent, but that
`
`plaintiff attached the patents and described inter alia how “its Attendance Tracking System uses
`
`RFID technology and ID badges to track human presence in large volumes.”). Even applying
`
`InCom as purported by Golden, Golden’s amended complaint does not (among other things)
`
`describe specific systems developed and manufactured by Apple that are like Golden’s ‘287 Patent
`
`and how the systems perform the same unique function as Golden’s system or assert facts
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 6 of 7
`
`regarding the availability of his technology prior to his invention.4 In light of the vague conclusory
`
`allegations in the complaint in this action, and Golden’s attempt to circumvent the prior dismissals
`
`of his patent infringement claims, the instant matter is subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.
`
`Although this Court agrees with the Report that Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed
`
`because it is frivolous, the Court declines to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.
`
`Moreover, given the Court’s modification of the Report, the Court declines to impose sanctions.
`
`Furthermore, the Court finds Golden’s remaining objections to be non-specific and/or moot and,
`
`therefore, overrules them.
`
`Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record
`
`in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as modified and incorporates it
`
`herein.
`
`IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without
`
`prejudice and without the issuance of service of process.
`
`
`4
`The Court is mindful of the Magistrate’s previous order (DE 1) imposing a thirty-five (35) page
`limit for Plaintiff’s complaint and notifying him that his case is not in proper form for service because inter
`alia Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., requires only that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
`showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff previously filed his complaint
`and exhibits numbering more than 300 pages. While Plaintiff’s current complaint totals 34 pages and he
`has raised an objection to the 35-page limit imposed by the Magistrate, this Court modifies the Magistrate’s
`previous order and the Report and hereby lifts the 35-page limit restriction for an amended complaint.
`
`Although the Court has lifted this restriction, the Court notes that Golden’s complaint in Case
`Number 3 numbered more than 150 pages (not counting exhibits) and his amended complaint numbered
`more than 250 pages (not counting exhibits) and the matter was still dismissed as frivolous. See Golden,
`Apple, Inc., et al., C/A No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC. Likewise, Case Number 4, whose complaint numbers
`more than 80 pages, has equally been dismissed as frivolous. See Golden v. Apple, Inc., et al., C/A No.
`6:20-cv-02270-JD. The lifting of the restriction should not be taken as an imprimatur for a successful no
`page limit complaint. As a reminder, the filing of excessive and unnecessary documents impedes judicial
`efficiency and the administration of justice. See Spencer v. Hedges, 838 F.2d 1210, 1988 WL 9621, at *1
`(4th Cir. 1988) (unpublished table decision) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where a plaintiff failed to
`provide a short and plain statement of a claim under Rule 8). As Golden has experienced in his previous
`cases, “. . . length and complexity may doom a complaint by obfuscating the claim’s essence.” United
`States v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`6:20-cv-04353-JD Date Filed 11/02/21 Entry Number 26 Page 7 of 7
`
`AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenville, South Carolina
`November 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Joseph Dawson, III
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
`
`Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days
`
`
`
`
`from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`