Larry Golden v. USPTO: Federal Circuit Affirms in Multi-Sensor Patent Appeal
Pro se inventor Larry Golden appealed against the USPTO over five patents covering a multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock-disabling system. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision below in a 210-day appellate proceeding, leaving the USPTO’s position fully intact.
Federal Circuit closes Golden’s five-patent challenge to USPTO ruling
Larry Golden, a pro se patent holder, filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 26 August 2024, targeting the United States Patent and Trademark Office. At stake were five patents — US9096189B2, US10163287B2, USD836027S, US9589439B2, and USD836487S — collectively covering a multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock-disabling system. The underlying dispute centred on an infringement action, with the USPTO defended by a four-attorney team from the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Federal Circuit issued its disposition on 24 March 2025, ordering the appeal affirmed. An affirmance at this level means the appellate panel found no reversible error in the decision rendered below; the USPTO’s position on each of the five patents was left undisturbed. Although the Basis of Termination also records ‘Appeal Dismissed’, the operative order is an affirmance on the merits, which carries greater legal weight for Golden’s ability to re-litigate the same claims.
The 210-day span from filing to disposition is broadly consistent with the Federal Circuit’s handling of pro se patent appeals, which typically move faster than fully-briefed inter partes matters. The public record does not disclose the specific USPTO proceeding under review — whether an ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, or prosecution decision — nor the precise grounds on which affirmance rested. What the record does confirm is that Golden exhausted his appellate option at this court level without success across all five patents.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 210 days
210-day appellate resolution — consistent with expedited Federal Circuit handling of pro se patent appeals
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means no reversible error was found below
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it signals that the appellate panel reviewed the record and found the lower tribunal’s legal reasoning and factual findings free of reversible error. The lower decision — whatever the USPTO body entered against Golden — is now final at this court level. Affirmance does not create new law on the patents; it simply closes the appellate avenue that Golden pursued.
No reversible error foundGolden’s five patents emerge without appellate vindication
For Larry Golden, the affirmance means the USPTO’s adverse determination on each of the five patents — covering multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock-disabling technology — stands as the definitive resolution at the Federal Circuit level. Enforceability and validity arguments Golden may have raised on appeal did not prevail. Further review would require a petition to the Supreme Court, which grants certiorari in a small fraction of patent cases.
USPTO position upheldUSPTO’s ruling survives Federal Circuit scrutiny
The affirmance fully vindicates the USPTO’s position across all five patents in dispute. The DOJ’s representation of the agency proved effective at every stage of the appellate briefing. For the USPTO, the outcome reinforces the agency’s administrative determinations on this cluster of multi-sensor and vehicle-security patents, with no remand or corrective action required.
Agency determination upheldAffirmed USPTO ruling raises the bar for re-challenging these patents
With the Federal Circuit’s affirmance on record, any party operating in the multi-sensor detection or vehicle lock-disabling space who monitors Golden’s patent portfolio should note that the USPTO’s adverse action on these five patents has now survived appellate review. This typically signals a higher bar for any subsequent challenge and suggests competitors or licensees need not treat these specific patents as active enforcement threats — pending any Supreme Court intervention.
Reduced enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Larry Golden | Individual | Pro se inventor and patent holder — holder of US9096189B2 and four related multi-sensor system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | United States and Trademark Office | Individual | United States Patent and Trademark Office — federal agency; defended by DOJ litigation teamSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Larry Golden | Attorney | Counsel for Larry GoldenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian M. Boynton | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Conrad Joseph DeWitte | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grant Drews Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott David Bolden | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | United States Department of Justice | Law Firm | Representing United States and Trademark OfficeSearch 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 — ‘AFFIRMED’ — is unqualified and covers all five patents in the proceeding. At the appellate level, affirmance reflects application of deferential standards of review: legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, while factual findings from the USPTO are reviewed for substantial evidence. The absence of any remand instruction confirms that the panel found no issue requiring correction below, leaving Golden with no further avenue at the Federal Circuit.
US9096189B2 — Multi-sensor detection and vehicle lock-disabling system
The five patents at issue — US9096189B2, US10163287B2, USD836027S, US9589439B2, and USD836487S — collectively protect a multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock-disabling system for vehicles. The utility patents cover functional aspects: sensor fusion, vehicle immobilisation logic, and remote-disabling mechanisms consistent with connected-vehicle and IoT security architectures. The two design patents protect the ornamental appearance of the system’s physical form factor. Application dates span from US14/021693 (filed 2013) through US15/530839, indicating a prosecution history of roughly a decade across the portfolio.
This patent cluster sits at the intersection of automotive security, IoT sensor networks, and vehicle telematics — a domain attracting substantial commercial and regulatory attention. The stall-to-stop and lock-disabling functionality aligns with emerging vehicle immobilisation and fleet-management technologies. For competitors in connected-vehicle security, aftermarket telematics, or smart-lock systems, understanding the claim scope of this portfolio — and the USPTO’s adverse determinations now affirmed by the Federal Circuit — is commercially material when assessing product clearance.
Should you run an FTO against US9096189B2 and Golden’s multi-sensor portfolio?
Any company developing multi-sensor vehicle detection systems, vehicle immobilisation technology, or IoT-based lock-disabling products should assess Golden’s five-patent portfolio for FTO exposure. The USPTO’s adverse action — now affirmed — may limit some claim scope, but the public record does not confirm which specific claims were invalidated or limited. Pending applications from the same inventor family could present forward-looking risk that an FTO search would surface.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of US9096189B2, US10163287B2, US9589439B2, and both design patents against your product architecture in minutes. The agent surfaces related continuation filings, identifies prior art overlap, and flags design-around pathways — giving your R&D and legal teams the evidence base to make clearance decisions confidently before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9096189B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals: multi-sensor and vehicle-security IP
Browse Federal Circuit appeals involving multi-sensor detection and vehicle-security patents, including comparable pro se inventor cases and USPTO administrative review affirmances.
What this case signals for the vehicle-security patent IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance against a pro se inventor clarifies the enforceability landscape for multi-sensor vehicle detection patents.
Pro se Federal Circuit appeals rarely succeed — this case confirms the pattern
Pro se appellants at the Federal Circuit face steep procedural and substantive hurdles. An affirmance here is consistent with the court’s historically low reversal rate for unrepresented inventors challenging USPTO administrative decisions. IP teams monitoring similar portfolios should treat Federal Circuit affirmances as near-final resolutions unless Supreme Court review is actively sought.
Five-patent clusters signal portfolio enforcement — monitor continuation filings
Golden’s five asserted patents share a common technological thread: multi-sensor detection, vehicle stall-to-stop, and lock-disabling systems. Inventors asserting clustered portfolios — including design patents (USD836027S, USD836487S) alongside utility patents — often file continuations or divisionals. R&D teams in connected-vehicle and IoT security should screen for related applications from the same inventor.
Golden v United — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s decision across all five patents — US9096189B2, US10163287B2, USD836027S, US9589439B2, and USD836487S. The order, issued 24 March 2025, found no reversible error in the lower determination, leaving the USPTO’s adverse action on Golden’s multi-sensor detection and lock-disabling patent portfolio intact.
Five patents were at issue: three utility patents (US9096189B2, US10163287B2, US9589439B2) and two design patents (USD836027S, USD836487S). Together they cover a multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock-disabling system — a vehicle-security technology combining sensor fusion, remote immobilisation, and IoT connectivity elements.
An affirmance means the USPTO’s adverse finding on each of Golden’s five patents now stands as final at the Federal Circuit level. Golden’s appellate options are effectively exhausted short of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The specific claims affected depend on the underlying USPTO proceeding, which is not fully detailed in the public appellate record.
The U.S. Department of Justice routinely represents federal agencies — including the USPTO — in federal appellate litigation. In this case, a four-attorney DOJ team including Brian M. Boynton and Scott David Bolden appeared for the agency. This is standard practice when a USPTO administrative decision is challenged before the Federal Circuit.
The affirmance suggests the USPTO’s adverse action on the five Golden patents has survived appellate scrutiny, which may reduce enforcement risk from these specific patents. However, the scope of claims invalidated or limited is not fully disclosed in the public record. Product teams in multi-sensor detection or vehicle lock-disabling should conduct a targeted FTO search to confirm clearance and screen for any related pending applications in Golden’s portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.