3:26-cv-00831
Golden v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Larry Golden (South Carolina)
- Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Larry Golden
- Case Identification: 6:26-cv-00831, N.D. Cal., 06/02/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Google has a principal place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Google's "modified" cell phones and other products are manufactured abroad using Plaintiff's patented processes and that their subsequent importation, sale, or use in the U.S. constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrating mobile devices, such as smartphones, with sensor networks and control systems for detecting chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE) threats and for remote monitoring and control.
- Key Procedural History: This amended complaint follows a court order removing allegations related to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,163,287 and 10,984,619, which the court found to be an improper attempt to relitigate claims from prior judgments. The complaint heavily references prior litigation involving the Plaintiff, Google, and Samsung, as well as Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings and a PTAB claim construction ruling, which Plaintiff argues collectively validate his infringement theory of "modification before infringement."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-17 | Plaintiff files Disclosure Document for CMDC device with biometric identifier |
| 2006-04-05 | Earliest Priority Date for '497, '752, '761, '280, RE43,891, RE43,990, '189, '439 Patents |
| 2006-01-01 | DOD "secrecy" examination of patent applications begins |
| 2007-10-30 | DHS S&T "Cell-All" initiative (BAA07-10) is published |
| 2008-06-10 | '497 Patent Issued |
| 2010-01-01 | USPTO "reissue" re-examination period begins |
| 2011-09-01 | "Cell-All Demonstrations" are held |
| 2012-01-31 | '752 Patent Issued |
| 2012-12-18 | '761 Patent Issued |
| 2013-01-01 | RE43,891 Patent Issued |
| 2013-02-12 | RE43,990 Patent Issued |
| 2013-09-10 | '280 Patent Issued |
| 2014-01-01 | DHS/DOJ IPR challenge begins |
| 2015-08-04 | '189 Patent Issued |
| 2015-10-01 | PTAB issues Final Written Decision in IPR2014-00714 |
| 2017-03-06 | Priority Date for '898 Patent |
| 2017-03-07 | '439 Patent Issued |
| 2022-10-05 | Date of service in prior case Golden v. Google LLC, Case No. 22-5246 |
| 2023-05-09 | '898 Patent Issued |
| 2026-06-02 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,385,497 - "Multi Sensor Detection and Lock Disabling System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the threat of terrorism and the need for security systems to monitor and control access to products like shipping containers to prevent the transport of hazardous materials or weapons '497 Patent, col. 2:1-14
- The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a system of detector cases containing interchangeable sensors for chemical, biological, or radiological agents '497 Patent, abstract When a threat is detected, the system can transmit information to a remote monitoring terminal and send a signal to a "lock disabler" to physically secure the product (e.g., a container door), preventing unauthorized access and further contamination '497 Patent, col. 4:1-15 '497 Patent, Figs. 13-14
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for a networked sensor and response system to enhance supply chain security, a significant area of focus in the post-9/11 era.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not assert specific independent claims in a conventional manner, instead amalgamating various limitations to define a "patented process" Compl. ¶¶20-23 Claim 1 is a representative independent claim.
- Independent Claim 1 is directed to a monitoring equipment comprising:
- At least one of a central processing unit (CPU), a network processor, or a front end processor for communication.
- A transmitter and a receiver for signals.
- A lock disabling mechanism.
- A short-range radio frequency (RF) connection that is near-field communication (NFC).
- At least one of a satellite, Bluetooth, WiFi, Internet, RF, cellular, broadband, or GPS connection.
- At least one of a fingerprint, voice, or other biometric recognition system.
- Capability of sending signals to engage, disengage, or disable a remote lock.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but incorporates a vast number of limitations that appear in both independent and dependent claims across the asserted patent portfolio Compl. ¶¶23, 49, 77, 102, 127, 155, 183, 211
U.S. Patent No. 8,106,752 - "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses security threats related to vehicles, including unauthorized use (theft) and the potential for a vehicle to be used in a terrorist attack '752 Patent, col. 1:1-2:45
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for remotely disabling a vehicle. A distress signal from a device like a cell phone is sent to a monitoring station, which then relays commands via satellite or cell tower to a transceiver in the vehicle '752 Patent, abstract These commands actuate a "stall-to-stop" mechanism that interferes with the vehicle's electromotive systems (e.g., fuel, ignition) to slow or halt the vehicle and potentially lock the doors '752 Patent, Fig. 18 '752 Patent, col. 12:15-30
- Technical Importance: The technology outlines a system for remote vehicle intervention, a concept relevant to advanced telematics for anti-theft, law enforcement, and fleet management applications.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not assert specific independent claims of the '752 patent. Claim 1 is a representative independent claim.
- Independent Claim 1 is directed to a stall-to-stop disabling and slowdown system comprising:
- Monitoring equipment at a determinate monitoring site.
- At least one cellular tower and at least one satellite for sending and receiving signals.
- The satellite or cell tower being capable of two-way signal communication with the vehicle's transceiver.
- Whereupon a distress signal sent from a portable communication device causes a signal to be sent to the monitoring equipment, which then communicates with the vehicle's transceiver to execute commands that actuate the stall-to-stop system.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule
U.S. Patent No. 8,334,761: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System", issued December 18, 2012. The patent continues the themes of its parent patents, describing a system for detecting threats and remotely disabling products or vehicles, with claims focusing on the specific combinations of sensors, communication links, and control mechanisms. Asserted claims are not specified, but the complaint alleges Google's products use the patented process Compl. ¶¶20-23 The accused features are Google's "modified" cell phones and their integrated systems Compl. ¶¶2-5
U.S. Patent No. 8,531,280: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System", issued September 10, 2013. This patent further refines the system for threat detection and remote vehicle/product disabling, with an emphasis on the communication pathways between a remote device, monitoring stations, and the target vehicle via cellular or satellite links. Asserted claims are not specified. The accused features are Google's "modified" cell phones and Waymo vehicles, which allegedly embody the patented process Compl. ¶¶43-48
U.S. Patent No. RE43,891: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System", issued January 1, 2013. This is a reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 7,636,033. The technology concerns a system for remotely controlling a vehicle's stall-to-stop or slowdown capabilities based on signals from a monitoring station, which may be triggered by an event like unauthorized use. Asserted claims are not specified. The accused features include Google/Waymo vehicles, which Plaintiff alleges cannot function without the patented stall/stop system Compl. p. 44
U.S. Patent No. RE43,990: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System", issued February 12, 2013. This is another reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 7,636,033. It describes a communication device (e.g., a smartphone) that can interact with a vehicle's disabling system and a broader network, including monitoring stations and communication towers. Asserted claims are not specified. The accused features are Google's "modified" cell phones and their role within the Android ecosystem in controlling connected devices Compl. ¶¶41-42
U.S. Patent No. 9,096,189: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System", issued August 4, 2015. This patent covers a communication device, such as a smartphone, interconnected with a product for monitoring and communication, comprising a CPU, transmitter, receiver, and various communication links (e.g., satellite, Bluetooth, WiFi). Asserted claims are not specified. The accused features are Google's "modified" cell phones, alleged to be manufactured using the claimed process for a communication and control device Compl. ¶¶49, 54-56
U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System", issued March 7, 2017. The technology involves a cell phone comprising a CPU and various sensors (chemical, biological, etc.) capable of being disposed within or adjacent to the phone, which can send location and sensor data upon detection of an agent. Asserted claims are not specified. The accused features are Google's cell phones, which allegedly include internal camera biosensors and external interconnected devices like the Google Pixel Watch for chem/bio detection Compl. ¶29
U.S. Patent No. 11,645,898: "Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop, and Lock Disabling System", issued May 9, 2023. This patent describes a pre-programmed system to stall, stop, or slow a vehicle in response to various triggers, including remote signals or automated detection of unsafe conditions (e.g., unintended acceleration, lane departure). Asserted claims are not specified. The accused instrumentality is the Google/Waymo self-driving vehicle, which Plaintiff alleges incorporates this patented process for vehicle control Compl. p. 43
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses Google's "modified" cell phones (specifically the Google Pixel line), the Android Operating System, Google's Tensor CPUs, Google's Watch Series, and Google/Waymo's Self-Driving Vehicles Compl. ¶¶49, 63, 76, 160, 253
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Google's products, particularly the Pixel smartphones running the Android OS, are "modified" to create a "communicating, monitoring, detecting, and controlling (CMDC) device" Compl. ¶2 This modification is alleged to occur during the manufacturing process abroad, which integrates standard hardware components-such as the camera, microphone, and ambient light sensor-and software to function as "biosensors" for CBRNE-H detection Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶26 The complaint alleges that Google's Android ecosystem, which includes the Google Play store and connections to other devices like smartwatches and cars, is the "mastermind" of the infringing process Compl. ¶41 The complaint includes a diagram of the "Android Ecosystem" to illustrate the interconnected nature of the accused devices, applications, and services Compl. p. 42
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'497 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lock disabling mechanism that is able to engage (lock), or disengage (unlock), or disable (make unavailable) the monitoring equipment after a specific number of tries | Plaintiff alleges Google's "Disabling Lock" and "Failed Authentication Lock" features, which can lock a phone screen or wipe the device after repeated failed unlock attempts, constitute a lock disabling mechanism Compl. ¶132 Compl. ¶174 | ¶174 | col. 9:30-38 |
| a short-range radio frequency (RF) connection that is near-field communication (NFC) | Google Pixel phones are alleged to include NFC capability for contactless transactions and data exchange, which the complaint asserts is part of the patented process Compl. ¶203 | ¶203 | col. 16:11-13 |
| at least one of a satellite connection, Bluetooth connection, WiFi connection, Internet connection, ... or GPS connection | The Google Android OS is alleged to manage hardware providing these connections, including Wi-Fi, Cellular (3G/4G/5G), Bluetooth, NFC, and GPS Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶82 | ¶70 | col. 15:20-27 |
| at least one of a fingerprint recognition, voice recognition, face recognition, hand geometry, retina scan, iris scan, or signature recognition system | Google Pixel phones are alleged to include biometric authentication features such as fingerprint and facial recognition for secure unlocking Compl. ¶146 | ¶146 | col. 15:30-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over whether the term "lock disabling mechanism," described in the patent in the context of physical locks on containers, can be construed to read on software-based security features like screen locks or remote data wipes on a smartphone.
- Technical Questions: Plaintiff's theory relies on the aggregation of standard smartphone features to meet claim limitations. A key question will be whether the accused products, as sold, constitute an infringing "monitoring equipment" or if they are merely general-purpose devices that could potentially be used in an infringing manner by end-users.
'752 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitoring equipment located at a determinate monitoring site that is remote from the vehicle | The complaint's infringement theory is not clearly mapped to this element, but it appears to allege that Google's cloud-based services, such as "Find My Device," function as remote monitoring equipment Compl. ¶174 Compl. ¶209 | ¶174 | col. 12:44-46 |
| at least one... satellite... capable of two-way signal communication with the transceiver of the vehicle | Google Pixel phones are alleged to use A-GPS, which accesses satellites for location information. The complaint alleges this constitutes the claimed satellite communication link Compl. ¶114 Compl. ¶121 | ¶114 | col. 14:1-12 |
| whereupon a distress signal made due to unauthorized use of the vehicle... causes a signal to be sent to the monitoring equipment | The complaint alleges that features like "Find My Device" can be used to remotely locate and reset a phone, which could be interpreted as a "distress signal" system for an unauthorized use scenario Compl. ¶174 | ¶174 | col. 12:47-56 |
| ...commands that actuate the stall-to-stop system for stopping the vehicle... | The complaint alleges that Google/Waymo's self-driving cars cannot function without Plaintiff's "stall, stop, or vehicle slow-down system," suggesting these vehicles incorporate the claimed process Compl. p. 44 | ¶43 | col. 12:24-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a "stall-to-stop... system" for a physical vehicle can be read on software-based phone security features. For the Waymo allegations, the question will be whether its autonomous driving control systems fall within the scope of the claimed "stall-to-stop" system.
- Technical Questions: Plaintiff provides no technical detail on how Google's phone-locking features actuate a vehicle's "electromotive system" as required by the claim. The allegations against Waymo are conclusory, and a key question will be what, if any, evidence demonstrates that Waymo vehicles practice the specific steps of the claimed method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For U.S. Patent No. 7,385,497:
- The Term: "lock disabling mechanism"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff alleges it covers software-based features like Google's "Find My Device" and screen locks Compl. ¶132 Compl. ¶174 Google may argue the term is limited to the physical lock mechanisms for containers and other tangible products described in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent can be applied to the software and smartphone security domain.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a physical lock, referring generally to a "mechanism" that can "disable."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '497 patent's abstract refers to a signal sent to a "lock disabler engaged to the product to lock or disable the product's lock." The detailed description and figures consistently depict physical locks on physical products, such as a shipping container (Fig. 4) or a news rack (Fig. 7), suggesting the invention's context is physical security '497 Patent, col. 9:1-13
For U.S. Patent No. 8,106,752:
- The Term: "stall-to-stop... system"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff appears to equate this term with remote device-locking or wiping features on smartphones and with the control systems of Waymo vehicles Compl. p. 44 Compl. ¶174 The patent, however, describes a system that directly interferes with a vehicle's "electromotive system" (e.g., ignition, fuel) to bring it to a halt '752 Patent, col. 12:24-30 The construction of this term will be central to determining if there is a fundamental mismatch between the patent's scope and the accused functionalities.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "system" is broad, and one could argue that any remote command that renders a device inoperable falls within a broad interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the system to the physical components of a vehicle, stating it "disables or engages the computer, electrical, fuel and air systems of the vehicle" to control "the horsepower of the motor" '752 Patent, col. 12:24-30 This language strongly suggests a direct, physical intervention in a vehicle's propulsion and control systems, not a software lock on a consumer electronic device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint is primarily centered on a theory of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which concerns the importation of products made by a patented process Compl. ¶5 While it mentions "joint (divided) infringement," it does not plead specific facts to support inducement or contributory infringement theories Compl. p. 12
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on Google's purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least October 5, 2022, the date of service in a prior litigation Compl. p. 12 Plaintiff characterizes Google's alleged conduct as "egregious," "bad-faith," and "characteristic of a pirate" Compl. p. 11 Compl. p. 20
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Process vs. Product under § 271(g): A central legal question will be whether Google's alleged foreign activities-assembling smartphones with standard components and configuring them with its Android OS-constitute practicing a U.S. "patented process." The court will need to determine if the combination of general-purpose hardware and software amounts to the specific multi-step methods claimed in the patents, or if the resulting phones are simply articles of manufacture that do not, as imported, infringe.
- Functional Equivalence of Sensors: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the general-purpose hardware in Google's devices (e.g., cameras, microphones) actually perform the specific function of "detecting... chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive agents" as required by the claims? The case may depend on whether Plaintiff can provide evidence that these components operate as the claimed specialized "detectors," as opposed to merely being capable of processing data that could theoretically be used for such a purpose. The complaint includes a table listing "Google's Smartphone Biosensors Submitted to the Courts" to support this theory Compl. p. 26
- Definitional Scope: The dispute will likely involve a significant battle over definitional scope. A core issue will be whether claim terms rooted in the context of physical security for vehicles and containers, such as "lock disabling mechanism" and "stall-to-stop system," can be construed to cover purely software-based security features on a consumer electronic device, like a screen lock or a remote data wipe function.