DCT

3:22-cv-05246

Golden v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Larry Golden (South Carolina)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
Case Identification: 4:22-cv-05246, N.D. Cal., 08/23/2023
Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s principal place of business being located in Mountain View, California, within the judicial district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Pixel smartphones, Google Tensor CPU, and Android Operating System infringe patents related to integrated multi-sensor detection, communication, and remote disabling systems.
Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for detecting chemical, biological, or radiological threats and communicating alerts to remotely monitor and control access to assets such as vehicles or containers.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a prior related case was appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-1267), which vacated a district court dismissal and remanded the case, finding the original complaint was "not facially frivolous." The complaint also references a 2015 Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-00454) involving a related patent, in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board construed certain claim terms.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-04-05	Priority Date for '619, '287, '439, '189 Patents
2015-08-04	U.S. Patent No. 9,096,189 Issued
2015-10-01	IPR Final Written Decision Entered (IPR2014-00454)
2017-03-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439 Issued
2018-12-25	U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 Issued
2021-04-20	U.S. Patent No. 10,984,619 Issued
2022-09-08	Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Prior Case
2023-08-23	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,984,619 - Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop, and Lock Disabling System

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,984,619, “Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop, and Lock Disabling System,” Issued April 20, 2021.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the "constant threat of terrorist activity" and the need for security protocols to control access to assets like shipping containers and vehicles to prevent unauthorized entry and contamination (’619 Patent, col. 2:3-20).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses detector cases with interchangeable sensors to sample for chemical, biological, and radiological agents on or near a monitored product. Upon detection of a threat, the system can transmit information to a monitoring terminal and send a signal to a "lock disabler" to secure the product. An enhanced version for vehicles allows the system to detect explosives and, via satellite, alert a monitoring site that can remotely activate a "stall-to-stop process" to disable the vehicle (’619 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:37-54).
Technical Importance: The technology purports to provide a unified platform that combines multi-modal threat detection with remote, active control over physical access systems for security and anti-terrorism applications (’619 Patent, col. 3:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶77).
Essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
- A central processing unit (CPU) of a personal computer, cellphone, smartphone, laptop, or handheld scanner.
- The CPU is capable of processing instructions for various functions, including:
  - Locking, unlocking, or disabling the device's own lock.
  - Activating a vehicle's lock via a two-way key-fob.
  - Authenticating a user via biometrics (e.g., fingerprint recognition).
  - Scanning a sensor or tag using near-field communication (NFC).
  - Monitoring or detecting chemical, biological, or radiological agents.
  - Receiving instructions via wireless transmissions (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, satellite, cellular).
  - Connecting to an Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 - Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287, “Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System,” Issued December 25, 2018.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for security systems to counter terrorist threats by controlling access to vulnerable products and infrastructure (’287 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "monitoring device" comprising a CPU and various sensors (e.g., temperature, motion, chemical, biological). The device includes a locking mechanism and a transceiver configured to send signals to monitor or control external items such as a door, vehicle, or building. The system can be interconnected with surveillance towers to monitor assets like shipping containers at ports (’287 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25-35).
Technical Importance: The invention integrates environmental and threat sensing with communication and remote control capabilities into a single monitoring device, intended for broad security applications (’287 Patent, col. 3:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶81).
Essential elements of independent claim 5 include:
- A monitoring device comprising a central processing unit (CPU).
- At least one temperature sensor in communication with the CPU.
- At least one motion sensor in communication with the CPU.
- A locking mechanism for locking the communication device itself.
- At least one sensor for chemical, biological, or human detection.
- One or more detectors for chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive agents.
- A transmitter or transceiver configured to send signals to monitor or control a door, vehicle, or building.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439 - Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439, “Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System,” Issued March 7, 2017.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a security system centered on a network of watchtowers equipped with surveillance capabilities, including remote video, night vision, and infrared human detection. The system is designed to communicate with mobile devices and a central monitoring terminal to secure critical areas like borders (’439 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: Independent claims 19 and 23 (Compl. ¶85).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Google’s products enable a "Communicating, Monitoring, Detecting, and Controlling (CMDC) device," with features such as a "Smartwatch CBR Detector" and "Embedded CBRN Sensors" accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶46 IV, V).

U.S. Patent No. 9,096,189 - Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,096,189, “Multi Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System,” Issued August 4, 2015.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communication device, such as a smartphone or PDA, that includes a CPU and various wireless communication modules (e.g., satellite, Bluetooth, RF). The device is designed to be interconnected with an external product to send or receive signals for controlling that product’s functions, such as locking doors or activating security systems (’189 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶89).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Google Pixel phones, including their CPUs and communication hardware, of infringement. A visual is provided in the complaint that presents a portion of claim 1 alongside a diagram of Qualcomm's Snapdragon modem system, which the complaint connects to the accused devices (Compl. p. 14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the Google Pixel 6a, 7, 7a, 7 Pro, and Fold smartphones; the Google Tensor CPU; and the Google Android Operating System (Compl. ¶2-4).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Google’s open-source Android OS and hardware, such as the Tensor CPU, are designed as a platform for integration with third-party applications (Compl. ¶46, ¶51). The core infringement theory is that this platform, when combined with specialized software like the Android Team Awareness Kit (ATAK) and its Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) plug-ins, creates an infringing "Communicating, Monitoring, Detecting, and Controlling (CMDC) device" (Compl. ¶46, ¶59-60). The complaint provides a Venn diagram illustrating the alleged integration of Google's Tensor G2 processor, Android OS, and third-party ATAK software to form the infringing system (Compl. p. 20). It further alleges that Google makes software available through its Play Store that enables CBRNE sensing and detection, thus facilitating the infringement (Compl. ¶63-71).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim chart exhibits for the '619 or '287 patents. The following tables summarize the infringement theories based on narrative allegations in the complaint.

'619 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
processing instructions to authenticate or identify a user by at least one of biometric fingerprint recognition...	The CMDC device includes "Fingerprint / Face Recognition" functionality.	¶46 X	col. 9:16-32
processing instructions to connect the communication device to the internet or internet-of-things (IoTs) platform...	The CMDC device includes "Internet-of-Things (IoTs)" functionality.	¶46 XIV	col. 4:5-7

'287 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
at least one central processing unit (CPU)	The CMDC device includes "Central Processing Units for CMDC Device."	¶46 II	col. 17:51-52
at least one of a transmitter or a transceiver... configured to send signals to monitor at least one of...a vehicle...	The CMDC device includes functionality to "Connect Vehicle with CMDC Device."	¶46 XIII	col. 18:61-64

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s theory appears to center on the capabilities of a general-purpose platform rather than a dedicated, pre-configured system. A central legal question may be whether a general-purpose smartphone and operating system, which are capable of being combined with third-party software to perform claimed functions, meet the limitations of patents directed to a specific "multi sensor detection...system." The complaint uses a screenshot of the ATAK application to illustrate how Google's "built-in, embedded" Android OS enables the alleged infringement (Compl. p. 25).
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused products actually perform the specific functions recited in the claims. For instance, regarding the '287 Patent, the analysis will question what evidence shows that the accused devices "send signals to monitor...a vehicle," as required by claim 5, rather than performing a related but potentially distinct function, such as displaying a vehicle's GPS data on a map interface.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "monitoring device" (’287 Patent, Claim 5)
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the dispute. The complaint asserts that an IPR proceeding construed the related term "communication device" as "monitoring equipment" (Compl. ¶72). Whether a general-purpose smartphone falls within this definition will be a key point of contention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines whether the patent applies to consumer electronics or is limited to specialized security hardware.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the invention's features can be incorporated into "cell phone cases, satellite cell phone cases, laptop cases," and similar items, which may support an interpretation that includes general-purpose consumer devices (’287 Patent, col. 12:55-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and summary repeatedly describe the invention as a "multi sensor detection and disabling lock system" comprising "detector cases for holding interchangeable detectors" for specific threats, which may support a narrower construction limited to purpose-built security apparatus (’287 Patent, Abstract).
The Term: "in communication with" (’287 Patent, Claim 5)
Context and Importance: This term governs the required relationship between the CPU and the various claimed sensors. Plaintiff’s infringement theory relies on Google’s Android OS and Tensor CPU being "in communication" with both integrated hardware (like cameras) and third-party software plug-ins that interface with external sensors (Compl. ¶50, ¶57). The required level of integration for this "communication" will be critical.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that detectors can be interconnected with the CPU "electrically (either by wire or wirelessly)," suggesting that a functional, rather than a physically integrated, connection is sufficient (’287 Patent, col. 4:20-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Descriptions of detectors placed "within the interior compartments" of a "detector case" could suggest a more tightly integrated system than a smartphone running an app that connects to an external sensor via a standard interface like Bluetooth (’287 Patent, col. 4:15-17).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Google encourages infringement by providing the Android Open-Source Project, which enables third parties like the DoD and Draper Laboratory to build the allegedly infringing ATAK system (Compl. ¶3, ¶51, ¶56). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Google Tensor CPU is a material component "especially made for use in an infringement" (Compl. ¶4).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement and willful blindness, arguing that Google intentionally remains unaware of facts that would establish its liability. The basis for willfulness appears to be Google's alleged knowledge of the patents from prior litigation, including a Federal Circuit appeal (Compl. p. 4, ¶14).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A core issue will be one of infringement by capability: does providing a general-purpose, open-source hardware and software platform that is capable of being configured by third parties to operate as the claimed "multi sensor detection...system" constitute direct infringement by the platform provider, or is it merely providing a tool for potential infringement by others?
A second key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "monitoring device," which is rooted in the patent's description of specialized cases for holding threat detectors, be construed to read on a mass-market consumer smartphone that achieves similar functionality only through third-party software?
A third issue will be an evidentiary one of functional operation: what specific evidence will be required to prove that the accused smartphones, when configured with third-party software, perform the exact technical functions recited in the claims, as opposed to similar but functionally distinct operations?