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`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
`
` No costs.
`
`COSTS
`
`