DCT

6:20-cv-04353

Golden v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-04353, D.S.C., 01/05/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on each defendant having transacted business in the district and committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of consumer electronics, telecommunications services, and automotive systems from numerous defendants infringe six patents related to remote monitoring, vehicle control, and sensor systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit generally relate to systems for detecting threats (e.g., chemical, biological, radiological) or unauthorized use of assets like vehicles and shipping containers, and remotely activating countermeasures such as disabling the asset.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint mentions prior patent infringement litigation filed by the Plaintiff in 2019 (Case No. 6:19-cv-02557) and an antitrust action filed in 2020 (Case No. 6:20-cv-02270), both in the District of South Carolina against many of the same defendants. The complaint also notes that an earlier version was returned by the court for violating a page limit. One of the asserted patents, U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE43,990, was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-00714), which resulted in the cancellation of claims 11, 74, and 81.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-04-05 Earliest Priority Date ('497, '990, '287, '439, '189, '891 Patents)
2008-06-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,385,497 ('497 Patent) Issues
2013-01-01 U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE43,891 ('891 Patent) Issues
2013-02-12 U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE43,990 ('990 Patent) Issues
2015-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,096,189 ('189 Patent) Issues
2017-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439 ('439 Patent) Issues
2018-12-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 ('287 Patent) Issues
2021-01-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 - "Multi sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the background threat of terrorism and the need for systems to prevent unauthorized entry, contamination, and terrorist activity involving assets such as shipping containers, vehicles, and other secured products (RE43,990 Patent, col. 1:48-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides for a "multi sensor detection system" that can be integrated with assets to detect threats (e.g., chemical, biological, explosive agents) and remotely activate countermeasures ('287 Patent, Abstract). For example, upon detecting an explosive in a vehicle, the system can transmit an alert via satellite to a monitoring station, which can then transmit a signal back to the vehicle to activate a "stall-to-stop process" and disable the vehicle's ignition system ('287 Patent, col. 3:15-26; Fig. 16).
  • Technical Importance: The technology purports to provide a framework for integrating remote sensing with active disabling countermeasures for a wide range of assets, moving beyond simple alarms to active intervention (RE43,990 Patent, col. 3:4-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1 and 5 against some defendants and only claim 5 against others (Compl. ¶¶28-43).
  • However, U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 contains only six claims, and claim 5 is a dependent claim. Independent claim 1 is the base for all asserted claims and contains the following essential elements:
    • A multi sensor detection system capable of identifying, monitoring, detecting, and securing critical areas.
    • At least one integrated, fixed, or surveillance watchtower.
    • A communication device (e.g., mobile phone, computer terminal).
    • A communication method (e.g., Wi-Fi, cellular, satellite).
    • A plurality of sensors for detecting humans.
    • A mobile multi-sensor detection device (e.g., mounted on a vehicle).
    • A hand-held multi-sensor detection device.
    • Wherein detection by the mobile device causes an automatic signal transmission to the monitoring equipment.

U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439 - "Multi sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the same general problem of terrorist threats as the '287 Patent, focusing on the need for a system that can detect harmful agents and selectively disable product locks to prevent unauthorized entry and contamination (RE43,990 Patent, col. 1:48-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a monitoring system, such as a computer terminal, that is equipped with sensors and a lock disabling mechanism ('439 Patent, Abstract). The system can be used with products grouped by "design similarity" (e.g., vehicles, containers) and can disable a product's lock after a specific number of unauthorized attempts to open it ('439 Patent, col. 16:21-30). It also claims a system that uses near-field communication (NFC) to read a tag and detect an agent, allowing for wireless data transfer ('439 Patent, col. 19:35-46).
  • Technical Importance: This technology builds on the general concept by detailing specific implementations, such as using biometric authentication for access control and NFC for wireless detection, reflecting an evolution toward more sophisticated device-level security protocols ('439 Patent, col. 19:55-65, col. 20:1-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 13-15, 22, and 23 (Compl. ¶¶45-60).
  • Independent Claim 13: A communication device (e.g., cell phone, computer) for monitoring products, comprising:
    • At least one sensor (chemical, biological, etc.).
    • A central processing unit (CPU).
    • A transmitter and receiver.
    • A communication connection (e.g., satellite, Wi-Fi, cellular).
    • A biometric lock disabler (e.g., fingerprint, face recognition).
    • Wherein the device is locked by the biometric disabler to prevent unauthorized use.
  • Independent Claim 22: A communication device (e.g., cell phone, laptop) comprising:
    • At least one sensor.
    • A CPU.
    • A transmitter and receiver.
    • A communication connection.
    • NFC capability.
    • A biometric lock disabler.
    • Whereupon a signal sent to the receiver causes location or sensor data to be sent to the communication device.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 14, 15, and 23.

U.S. Patent No. 9,096,189 - "Multi sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communication device, such as a cell phone or computer terminal, that can monitor products. It includes various communication connections (e.g., satellite, Wi-Fi) and is equipped with a biometric lock disabler to prevent its own unauthorized use ('189 Patent, col. 15:11-64).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, and 3 (Compl. ¶¶62-77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses a wide range of smartphones, smartwatches, computer processors, and telecommunication services of infringement (Compl. ¶¶62-69).

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE43,990 - "Multi sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a monitoring system with a "built-in, embedded multi sensor detection device" for monitoring products. It claims a system with a sensor array that detects agents (e.g., chemical, biological, explosive) and communicates an alarm via various product-to-product or product-to-network pathways ('990 Patent, col. 17:46-51, col. 18:7-23). The complaint asserts infringement of a large number of claims, including independent claim 125.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 125 and numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶79-94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses smartphones, smartwatches, computer processors, vehicles, and telecommunication services (Compl. ¶¶79-94).

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE43,891 - "Multi sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a "stall-to-stop and lock disabling system" for vehicles. The system includes monitoring equipment at a remote site and a transceiver in the vehicle. Upon receiving a distress signal (e.g., via a cell phone), the monitoring equipment can communicate with the vehicle via a cell tower or satellite to actuate the stall-to-stop system ('891 Patent, col. 14:6-42).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 11, 23, and 44, among others (Compl. ¶¶96-103).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "pre-programmed stall, stop, or vehicle slowdown systems (PSSVSS)" in vehicles from Ford, GM, and FCA, as well as GM/OnStar's "STOLEN VEHICLE SYSTEM" (Compl. ¶¶96-103).

U.S. Patent No. 7,385,497 - "Multi sensor detection and lock disabling system"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, the earliest issued in the asserted family, describes a multi-sensor detection system comprising a detector case with interchangeable detectors for chemical, biological, or radiological agents. Upon detection, the system can activate an alarm and transmit a signal to an "automatic/mechanical lock disabler" to secure the product ('497 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 (Compl. ¶¶105-108).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses various smartphones, smartwatches, and computer processors (Compl. ¶¶105-108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a wide array of accused instrumentalities across multiple defendants and industries (Compl. ¶¶28-108). These include:
    • Consumer Electronics: Apple's iPhone and Apple Watch series; Samsung's Galaxy and Note smartphone series and Galaxy Watch series; LG's smartphone and watch series; Motorola's smartphone series; and Panasonic's TOUGHBOOK laptops and ToughPad smartphones.
    • Components: Qualcomm's Snapdragon mobile processor platforms.
    • Automotive Systems: Vehicles and associated systems from Ford Global Technologies, General Motors, and FCA US LLC, including specific mention of GM/OnStar's "STOLEN VEHICLE SYSTEM" (Compl. ¶99). The complaint also names several local automotive dealerships.
    • Telecommunications Services: The services of AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are accused of infringement for "using to generate a profit for service, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the computerized communications devices" of other defendants (Compl. ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific technical descriptions of the accused products' functionalities. Instead, it lists product names and asserts in a conclusory manner that they infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶28-108). The infringement allegations against automotive defendants are slightly more specific, identifying "pre-programmed stall, stop, or vehicle slowdown systems" as the infringing instrumentalities (Compl. ¶96). The telecommunications carriers are accused based on their sale and service of the accused hardware products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement theories. The allegations consist of listing accused products and reciting the claims they are alleged to infringe.

U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A multi sensor detection system capable of identifying, monitoring, detecting, and securing those critical areas... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶28-43 col. 15:46-50
at least one of an integrated watchtower, a fixed watchtower, a surveillance watchtower... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶28-43 col. 15:50-55
a communication device of at least one of a mobile communication device, a mobile communication unit... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶28-43 col. 15:65-16:21
a mobile multi-sensor detection device that is at least one of a ground surveillance sensor... that is mounted in, on, or upon at least one of a car, a truck... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶28-43 col. 16:29-38
whereupon, detection by the mobile multi-sensor detection device causes an automatic signal transmission to be sent to... the monitoring equipment... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶28-43 col. 16:49-54

U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A communication device of at least one of a cell phone, a smart phone, a desktop, a handheld, a PDA, a laptop, or a computer terminal for monitoring products... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶45-60 col. 17:51-55
at least one of a chemical sensor, a biological sensor, an explosive sensor, a human sensor, a contraband sensor, or a radiological sensor... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶45-60 col. 17:56-59
at least one of a satellite connection, Bluetooth connection, WiFi connection, internet connection, radio frequency (RF) connection, cellular connection... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶45-60 col. 18:1-4
wherein the communication device is equipped with a biometric lock disabler that incorporates at least one of a fingerprint recognition, voice recognition... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶45-60 col. 18:21-25
such that the communication device... is locked by the biometric lock disabler to prevent unauthorized use... The complaint does not specify which product features meet this limitation, alleging only that the accused products infringe. ¶¶45-60 col. 18:25-29

Identified Points of Contention

  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary legal question will be whether the complaint’s conclusory allegations, which lack specific factual support mapping accused product features to claim elements, meet the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement established by Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
  • Factual Discrepancy: The complaint's infringement count for the '287 Patent asserts infringement of "at least claim 5" (Compl. ¶28), but claim 5 of the '287 Patent is a dependent claim, raising questions about the precision of the infringement allegations.
  • Scope Questions: For the '439 patent, a key question will be whether the accused smartphones and processors contain the claimed "chemical sensor, a biological sensor, an explosive sensor, a human sensor, a contraband sensor, and a radiological sensor" as required by independent claim 13. The complaint provides no facts to support the presence of such specialized sensors in mass-market consumer devices.
  • Technical Questions: For the '891 Patent directed to vehicle slowdown systems, the complaint accuses infringement by automotive companies "using, with its vehicles the alleged infringing devices of Apple's iPhone... Samsung's Galaxy S10 series," etc. (Compl. ¶¶96-98). This raises the technical question of how a third-party smartphone, as opposed to an integrated vehicle system, practices the claimed method of remotely stalling a vehicle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis, but based on the asserted claims and accused products, certain terms may become central to the dispute.

  • Term: "multi sensor detection system" (from '287 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears foundational to the asserted patents. Its scope will be critical, as the complaint accuses a vast range of products, from vehicles to smartphones, of infringing patents related to such systems. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a coordinated system of disparate physical sensors or if it can be read more broadly to cover software-based sensor integration within a single device.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification groups a wide variety of products together, including those with different sensor types, suggesting the term is intended to be a broad category (RE43,990 Patent, col. 7:12-25).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed descriptions repeatedly emphasize detection of "chemical, biological and radiological compounds, agents and elements," and specific embodiments show distinct, interchangeable physical detector units ('189 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This may support a narrower construction requiring specialized physical hardware not typically found in the accused smartphones.

  • Term: "biometric lock disabler" (from '439 Patent, claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires the accused communication device to be "equipped with a biometric lock disabler... to prevent unauthorized use." Modern smartphones use biometrics (fingerprint, face ID) to unlock the device for the user. A key question will be whether this common user-authentication feature constitutes a "lock disabler" in the context of the patent, which describes systems for remotely disabling assets in response to security threats.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, simply requiring a biometric feature that prevents unauthorized use ('439 Patent, col. 18:21-29). This could plausibly cover standard smartphone unlocking features.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description often link the disabler to an external asset, such as a container lock (RE43,990 Patent, Fig. 14, element 62). The term "disabler" might be construed to require an active function that disables a lock on another product, rather than merely authenticating a user for access to the device itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations that each defendant is "jointly, directly, indirectly and/or under the 'doctrine of equivalents'" infringing (Compl. ¶¶28-108). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but does request "punitive damages" in its relief section (Compl. p. 6). No facts are alleged to support a claim of pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patents that would be required for a finding of willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s pattern of naming a defendant, listing a product, and citing a patent claim, without providing any factual detail on how the product operates or meets the claim limitations, state a plausible claim for relief or does it represent a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical capability: can the plaintiff provide a plausible factual basis for the allegation that mass-market consumer electronics like smartphones and processors contain the specialized "chemical, biological, radiological, explosive, human, and contraband" sensors recited in multiple asserted claims?
  • A central legal question will be one of claim scope: can claims rooted in a system for monitoring physical assets (like shipping containers and vehicles) for terrorist threats and remotely disabling them be plausibly construed to cover the standard user-authentication and communication features of modern smartphones and mobile processors?