Summary
In Golden, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit emphasized that claim charts were insufficient to support the specific identification required when they only referenced products made by two non-parties, not the accused infringer.
Summary of this case from Solenis Techs. v. Buckman Labs.Opinion
2023-1818
10-10-2023
LARRY GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee
LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se. JOHN ALLEN YATES, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by KYRIE CAMERON.
This disposition is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 4:22-cv-03283-HSG, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
LARRY GOLDEN, Greenville, SC, pro se.
JOHN ALLEN YATES, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by KYRIE CAMERON.
Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Larry Golden appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing his antitrust, patent infringement, and unjust enrichment claims. Golden v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 22-CV-03283, 2023 WL 2530857 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) ("Decision"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Golden owns various patents directed to systems for locking, unlocking, or disabling a lock upon the detection of chemical, radiological, or biological hazards. The specific patents at issue in this case are U.S. Patents 9,589,439 ("the '439 patent"), 9,096,189 ("the '189 patent"), 10,163,287 ("the '287 patent"), 10,984,619 ("the '619 patent"). Appellant's Br. at 2. On several previous occasions, Golden has unsuccessfully asserted infringement of those patents against other defendants. See, e.g., Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2023-1161, 2023 WL 3400595 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2023); Golden v. Intel Corp., No. 2023-1257, 2023 WL 3262948 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2023); Golden v. United States, No. 2022-1196, 2022 WL 4103287 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022).
Golden filed the present suit against Qualcomm Inc. ("Qualcomm") on June 6, 2022. The district court interpreted the complaint, which included nearly 1,200 pages of attachments, as alleging (1) patent infringement, (2) antitrust violations, and (3) unjust enrichment. Decision at *2. After Qualcomm moved to dismiss Golden's complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court granted the motion without leave to amend. Decision at *4. Golden appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
This court applies the law of the regional circuit when reviewing a motion to dismiss. In re Bill of Lading Transmission &Processing Sys. Pat. Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit reviews challenges to a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir. 2004).
Rule 12(b)(6) requires "well-pleaded facts, not legal conclusions, that plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).
Because Golden appeals the district court's dismissal as to each of his (1) patent infringement, (2) antitrust violation, and (3) unjust enrichment claims, we discuss each issue in turn.
I
Regarding patent infringement, although a plaintiff "need not prove its case at the pleading stage" and "is not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element basis," it "cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly standard by reciting the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused product has those elements." Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The district court here found that Golden failed to adequately plead (1) direct infringement, (2) contributory infringement, or (3) induced infringement. Decision at *3.
Concerning direct infringement, the district court faulted Golden for failing to explain what Qualcomm product supposedly infringed the asserted patents, or how. Id. Although the complaint did include two claim charts, the district court found those irrelevant as they only covered products produced by two non-parties, GM and Samsung, not Qualcomm. Id.
On appeal, Golden argues that he "illustrates how Qualcomm is infringing Plaintiff's patented . . . devices" and provides several technical specification tables and figures relating to Qualcomm's "Snapdragon" chipset. Appellant's Br. at 11-26. Qualcomm responds that Golden added new factual allegations in his opposition and reply brief at the district court, as well as in his opening brief on appeal, that were not included in his district court complaint. Appellee's Br. at 23. Qualcomm further argues that even if those belated arguments are considered, they still do not state a plausible direct infringement claim. Id.
We agree with the district court that Golden's complaint failed to sufficiently plead a claim for direct infringement. It failed to clearly identify which specific claims of the asserted patents are being infringed. Furthermore, Golden's complaint failed to clearly identify which Qualcomm products infringe the asserted patents. To the extent that references in the complaint can be read to imply that Qualcomm's "phone for Snapdragon Insiders" and/or "Snapdragon Ride Platform" are the alleged infringing products, S.A. 40-42, the complaint did not adequately explain how those products infringe the asserted patent claims. As the district court noted, Golden included two claim charts in his complaint. Decision at *3. However, these claim charts only reference products made by two non-parties, GM and Samsung, not products made by Qualcomm, the accused infringer in this case.
Golden argues that the claim charts in this complaint are enough to adequately plead patent infringement because they "mirror" a claim chart presented in a previous case, Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022). Appellant's Br. at 2. However, Golden's complaint contains no such reliance on that previous claim chart, neither directly nor through incorporation by reference. Such a reference on appeal is improper, as a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Moreover, Golden v. Apple Inc. provides no help in this context because this court explicitly stated there that "[w]e express no opinion as to the adequacy of the complaint or claim chart except that it is not facially frivolous." Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1229, 2022 WL 4103285, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022). We made clear that "the district court should allow the complaint to be filed and request service of process;" however, "[o]ur decision [did] not preclude subsequent motions to dismiss by the defendant for failure to state a claim." Id. We thus agree with the district court that Golden failed to adequately plead direct infringement by Qualcomm or its customers, as his complaint does not include allegations beyond the identity of the defendant, implied references to the alleged infringing devices, and the alleged infringed-upon patents. Decision at *2-3; see also Golden v. Apple, No. 20-cv-04353, 2021 WL 5074739 at *2, aff'd as to that holding, No. 22-1229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022).
For the first time in this case, in a supplemental appendix attached to his Appellant's Reply Brief, Golden included a claim chart mapping features of Qualcomm's Snapdragon phone to limitations in specific claims of the asserted patents. Appellant's Reply Brief Appendix at 8592. Such a submission is untimely and will not be considered. A complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 821 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("We generally will not consider issues that were not presented in the district court." (internal citations omitted)).
Because Golden has failed to adequately plead direct infringement by Qualcomm or its customers in this case, his complaint also fails to sufficiently plead contributory or induced infringement. See Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972). We thus agree with the district court that "[Golden] fails to plausibly or adequately plead patent infringement." Decision at *2.
II
A party seeking to bring a private antitrust action must establish antitrust injury. American Ad Mgmt., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 190 F.3d 1051, 1054 &n.3 (9th Cir. 1999); Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 110 n.5 (1986). To plead antitrust injury, a party must allege that it suffered the suffered the type of injury that antitrust laws were designed to prevent. American Ad Mgmt., 190 F.3d at 1055, 1057. The Supreme Court has identified five factors for determining whether a plaintiff who has borne an injury has antitrust standing: (1) the nature of the plaintiff's alleged injury; that is, whether or not it was the type the antitrust laws were intended to forestall, (2) the directness of the injury, (3) the speculative measure of the harm, (4) the risk of duplicative recovery, and (5) the complexity in apportioning damages. Id. at 1054 (summarizing the factors identified in Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983)). Although no single factor is dispositive, id. at 1055 (citing R.C. Dick Geothermal Corp. v. Thermogenics, Inc., 890 F.2d 139, 146 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc)), the injured party must "be a participant in the same market as the alleged malefactors," Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 772 F.2d 1467, 1470 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Associated Gen. Contractors, 459 U.S. at 538-39).
The district court found Golden's antitrust claims to be frivolous based on his failure to plead antitrust standing. Decision at *2. The court found that Golden did not allege that he is a participant in the same market as Qualcomm or that he suffered antitrust injury in that market. Id. Rather, the court found that Golden failed to allege the contours of the relevant market whatsoever. Id.
On appeal, Golden argues that the district court misinterpreted his antitrust injury claim by discounting the evidentiary value provided by Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F.Supp.3d 658, 675 (N.D. Cal. 2019), rev'd and vacated, 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) regarding a running royalty rate charged by Qualcomm. Appellant's Br. at 5-6. Golden also argues that the district court did not give adequate weight to his "tying" arrangement arguments. Id. at 7. Qualcomm responds that (1) Golden's antitrust claims are time-barred, (2) Golden failed to adequately plead his participation in the same market as Qualcomm, and (3) Golden failed to adequately plead injury suffered in that market. Appellee's Br. at 14-18.
Although Golden's complaint contains general allegations that Qualcomm's activities "substantially affected the flow of interstate commerce," S.A. 23, it fails to allege that Golden is a participant in the same market as Qualcomm. In fact, Golden's complaint seems to allege that he is not a participant in the same market as Qualcomm. S.A. 36 ("Qualcomm's anticompetitive practices has [sic] restrained Plaintiff from entering the market to collect royalties on his patented inventions."). Moreover, Golden's complaint fails to adequately address his injury's directness, speculative nature, or complexity in apportioning damages. Instead, the complaint alleges injury only in a conclusory fashion. See, e.g., S.A. 36 ("Qualcomm's anticompetitive practices has [sic] restrained Plaintiff from entering the market to collect royalties on his patented inventions. Plaintiff is entitled to collect damages for any unlicensed use of his inventions. Damages are generally calculated based on lost profits Plaintiff suffered as a result of the use."). Although Golden's complaint seems to reference patent infringement as the purported injury in this way, we have determined that Golden failed to properly plead patent infringement, supra.
To the extent that Golden attempts to premise his antitrust claim on a barrier to entry, we agree with the district court that this is "fatally implausible," as Golden "is free to license his patents to whoever wants to license them, but [Golden's conclusory] theory does not state a viable antitrust claim." Decision at *2. Golden's arguments on appeal explaining the limited relevance of a district court case that was subsequently reversed and vacated, and clarifying his tying claim, do not remedy the insufficiency of his pleading. We thus agree with the district court that Golden has failed to plausibly plead an antitrust claim.
III
Based on Golden's failure to state a claim for patent infringement, the district court held that he also failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. This court has recognized that "unjust enrichment is not recognized under California law as a separate cause of action." Golden v. Intel Corp., No. 2023-1257, 2023 WL 3262948, at *2 n.3 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2023) (citing McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 387 (2004)). Because Golden failed to adequately plead patent infringement, we agree with the district court that he also failed to state plausible a claim for unjust enrichment.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Golden's remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.