Larry Golden v. Google LLC: Federal Circuit Affirms in Smartphone Patent Dispute
Pro se inventor Larry Golden asserted four US patents against Google’s Pixel smartphone lineup — including the Pixel 6a, 7, 7a, 7 Pro, and Fold — alleging infringement of sensor and security-related claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling in a case that closed 359 days after filing, leaving Golden’s claims extinguished at the appellate level.
Pro Se Inventor’s Four-Patent Assault on Google Pixel Fails at Federal Circuit
Larry Golden, a pro se inventor, filed Case No. 24-2024 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2024, appealing a lower court decision in his infringement action against Google LLC. Golden asserted four US patents — US9096189B2, US10163287B2, US10984619B2, and US9589439B2 — against Google’s Pixel smartphone product line, specifically the Pixel 6a, 7, 7a, 7 Pro, and Fold devices. The patents appear directed to sensor integration and security-related smartphone technologies.
The Federal Circuit issued its order on June 25, 2025, affirming the lower court’s decision. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed,’ yet the court’s operative language is ‘AFFIRMED,’ which is the authoritative legal disposition. An affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the lower court’s ruling, leaving that decision — adverse to Golden — fully intact. Google’s Pixel products remain unencumbered by these four patents as a result of this outcome.
The case resolved in approximately 359 days from filing to close, which is notably swift for a Federal Circuit patent appeal. The speed of resolution, combined with the unelaborated order form of the affirmance, suggests the court found the appeal lacking in merit under established Federal Circuit standards. Golden has pursued serial litigation against major technology companies in recent years; the public record of this proceeding does not disclose whether certiorari or other further review has been sought.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 359 days
359 days — faster than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal (typically 18–24 months)
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower court’s adverse ruling stands in full
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it concludes that the lower tribunal committed no reversible error — whether on claim construction, invalidity, non-infringement, or procedural grounds. The original ruling against Golden is not merely upheld in spirit; it becomes the settled law of the case. No remand is ordered, no claims are revived. The affirmance here forecloses any further argument on these four patents at this appellate level.
No reversible error foundGolden’s four patents cannot be re-litigated against Google on these facts
With the Federal Circuit’s affirmance, Larry Golden has exhausted his appellate remedies at this level. The four asserted patents — US9096189B2, US10163287B2, US10984619B2, and US9589439B2 — have been adjudicated unfavourably against Google’s Pixel devices. Any residual enforceability of these patents against other defendants in separate proceedings remains a separate question, but the Google avenue is effectively closed absent a successful petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Appellate remedies exhaustedGoogle’s Pixel lineup cleared of these four patent claims
Google, represented by Warren Kash Warren LLP, secured a clean affirmance protecting its Pixel 6a, 7, 7a, 7 Pro, and Fold devices from Golden’s asserted claims. The decision reinforces Google’s freedom to operate these products without exposure to the four patents in suit. For Google’s IP team, the affirmance also strengthens the preclusive record should Golden attempt to re-assert substantially similar claims in future proceedings involving the same patent family.
Pixel products clearedAffirmance raises the bar for future assertion of these patents against smartphone OEMs
A Federal Circuit affirmance in a patent infringement action carries significant precedential weight for the broader smartphone sensor and security patent landscape. Other OEMs facing assertion of the same four patents can now cite this outcome as persuasive authority. The decision also signals that the Federal Circuit is willing to resolve pro se appeals involving these patents swiftly, suggesting courts have consistently found the claims insufficient to survive scrutiny against major technology products.
Higher bar for future assertionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Larry Golden | Individual | Pro se inventor and patent holder — asserting four smartphone sensor and security patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | Google LLC — developer and manufacturer of the Pixel smartphone product lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Larry Golden | Attorney | Counsel for Larry GoldenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Warren | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Warren Kash Warren, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — employs the court’s standard summary affirmance formulation. At the Federal Circuit, affirmances without extended opinion typically signal that the panel found the appellant’s arguments insufficient to meet the demanding standard for reversal: clear error on fact, de novo error on law, or an abuse of discretion. For Golden, this is dispositive; for Google, it is the strongest possible appellate outcome short of a sanctions award. The basis of termination notation ‘Appeal Dismissed’ in the docket record appears to be an administrative classification that does not override the operative judicial language of ‘AFFIRMED.’
US9096189B2, US10163287B2, US10984619B2 & US9589439B2 — Smartphone Sensor & Security Patents
The four patents asserted in this case — US9096189B2 (App. No. 14/021693), US10163287B2 (App. No. 15/530839), US10984619B2 (App. No. 16/350683), and US9589439B2 (App. No. 14/806988) — were filed across a period from approximately 2013 to 2018, suggesting a deliberate continuation or continuation-in-part filing strategy by Golden. The patents appear directed to integrated sensor and security monitoring functionalities in mobile communication devices, a technology domain central to modern smartphone architecture including biometric authentication, environmental sensing, and device security.
From a competitive intelligence perspective, a four-patent family with staggered application dates spanning five years is consistent with a portfolio built to maintain rolling claim coverage as smartphone sensor technology evolved. The patents’ asserted relevance to flagship Pixel devices — including the Fold and Pro tiers — suggests claim scope targeting premium multi-sensor hardware. Any OEM shipping devices with integrated sensor arrays, biometric unlock, or communication security features should assess claim overlap with this family, particularly given that the affirmance does not extinguish the patents’ validity or their potential enforceability against non-Google products.
Should you run an FTO against US9096189B2 and the three co-asserted patents?
If your organisation develops or sources smartphones, tablets, or IoT devices incorporating multi-sensor integration, biometric security, or communication monitoring features, this four-patent family warrants a freedom-to-operate assessment. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance resolved the dispute as between Golden and Google — it does not invalidate the patents or create a blanket clearance for third parties. Companies shipping sensor-integrated mobile hardware into the US market remain potentially exposed until the patents expire or are separately invalidated.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the independent claims of US9096189B2, US10163287B2, US10984619B2, and US9589439B2 against your product specifications, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that may support inter partes review if assertion risk is identified. For in-house IP teams managing smartphone or connected-device portfolios, running this analysis proactively — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than defending a district court action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9096189B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Smartphone Patent Infringement Appeals
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving smartphone sensor and security patent assertions against major technology OEMs, including pro se inventor enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the smartphone patent enforcement landscape
Golden v. Google is one data point in a pattern of serial litigation by pro se inventors against Big Tech — and the Federal Circuit’s swift affirmance has broad implications.
Serial pro se assertions against Big Tech face high attrition at the Federal Circuit
Larry Golden has pursued infringement claims against multiple major technology companies. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance here — delivered relatively quickly and without apparent detailed opinion — is consistent with a pattern of courts finding these claims insufficiently supported. IP teams at smartphone OEMs monitoring Golden’s portfolio should note the increasing efficiency with which these appeals are resolved.
Four-patent portfolios in smartphone sensors warrant proactive FTO mapping
The four asserted patents span application numbers from 2013 to 2018, suggesting a sustained filing strategy around smartphone sensor and security integration. R&D teams developing biometric, connectivity, or multi-sensor smartphone features should conduct FTO analysis against this family, particularly given that enforcement risk against non-Google defendants remains open at the district court level.
Golden v Google — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling against Larry Golden in his patent infringement action against Google. The court issued an order stating ‘AFFIRMED’ on June 25, 2025, finding no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s decision. This cleared Google’s Pixel 6a, 7, 7a, 7 Pro, and Fold devices of infringement claims under Golden’s four asserted patents.
Golden asserted four US patents: US9096189B2 (App. No. 14/021693), US10163287B2 (App. No. 15/530839), US10984619B2 (App. No. 16/350683), and US9589439B2 (App. No. 14/806988). The patents appear directed to sensor integration and security monitoring technologies in mobile communication devices, asserted against Google’s Pixel smartphone lineup.
No. An affirmance at the Federal Circuit resolves the dispute between the specific parties on the record before the court — it does not necessarily invalidate the underlying patents. Golden’s four patents may remain nominally enforceable against other defendants in separate proceedings, though the appellate record now constitutes significant persuasive authority against future infringement claims involving similar products.
‘Appeal Dismissed’ appears to be an administrative docket classification applied by the court’s case management system. The operative legal disposition is the court’s own language: ‘AFFIRMED.’ At the Federal Circuit, an affirmance is substantively distinct from a dismissal — it reflects a merits determination that no reversible error existed in the lower court ruling, rather than a procedural termination. The affirmance language governs the legal effect of the outcome.
Other smartphone OEMs facing potential assertion of Golden’s four patents can now reference the Federal Circuit’s affirmance as persuasive authority in support of early dispositive motions. The decision does not create binding precedent on non-infringement for third parties, but it strengthens the record substantially. OEMs shipping sensor-integrated or biometric-enabled devices should still conduct independent FTO analysis, as the patents have not been formally invalidated.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.