Golden v. USPTO: Supreme Court Denies Rehearing on Multi-Sensor Detection Patent
Pro se inventor Larry Golden sought Supreme Court review of a patentability dispute over USRE043990E, a reissued patent covering a multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock disabling system. The Court denied rehearing in just 87 days, ending Golden’s bid for judicial reconsideration at the nation’s highest tribunal.
Filing to Petition Dismissed in 87 days
87 days — petition resolved significantly faster than median Supreme Court cert review cycles
Rehearing denied: what the Supreme Court’s dismissal means for both parties
Denial of rehearing at the Supreme Court level explained
A denial of rehearing by the U.S. Supreme Court means the Court declined to reconsider its earlier refusal to hear the case. It is not a ruling on the merits of the underlying patentability dispute. The denial is final at the federal judicial level, leaving the lower tribunal’s determination on USRE043990E undisturbed. No further avenue for federal judicial review remains.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingGolden’s patentability challenge exhausts federal judicial options
With rehearing denied, Larry Golden has exhausted all available federal judicial review pathways for this petition. The patentability determination that prompted the Supreme Court petition stands. Golden retains ownership of USRE043990E as issued, but the validity challenge outcome from the proceedings below is conclusive. Any future enforcement would proceed subject to that existing record.
Federal review exhaustedUSPTO’s patentability position left unchallenged at highest level
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, represented by the Department of Justice through Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, successfully withstood Golden’s petition. The denial of rehearing confirms that the USPTO’s position on the patentability or validity of the claims at issue will not be revisited by the Supreme Court in this proceeding, reinforcing the agency’s administrative determination.
Agency determination upheldReissued patent claims face high bar after failed Supreme Court challenge
For competitors and licensees operating in the multi-sensor detection and vehicle lock disabling space, the dismissal suggests the patentability contours of USRE043990E have been tested at the highest level without reversal. However, because no merits ruling issued, the denial carries no precedential weight on the underlying validity questions. Parties considering freedom-to-operate analyses should treat the underlying administrative record as the operative reference point.
No precedential merits rulingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Larry Golden | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | United States and Trademark Office | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Larry Golden | Attorney | Counsel for Larry GoldenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth B. Prelogar | 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 | U.S. Supreme CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict record reflects two compounding dispositions: a rehearing denial and a petition dismissal. Neither constitutes a merits adjudication on the patentability of USRE043990E’s claims. At the Supreme Court level, a rehearing denial confirms the Court’s unwillingness to revisit its earlier refusal of review — it signals no disagreement with the lower determination was found to be cert-worthy, but it establishes no binding precedent on the underlying validity or patentability questions.
USRE043990E — Multi-Sensor Detection, Stall to Stop and Lock Disabling System
USRE043990E is a reissued U.S. patent, with the corrected application number US13/199853, covering a multi-sensor detection, stall-to-stop, and lock disabling system. Reissued patents undergo re-examination to correct errors in the original grant, meaning the claims in USRE043990E reflect a post-grant examination cycle. The technology sits at the intersection of vehicle security, sensor integration, and access control — a domain with growing commercial relevance in connected and autonomous vehicle development.
The strategic significance of USRE043990E lies in its reissued status and the breadth of the underlying system claim covering multi-sensor detection combined with vehicle stall and lock control. Competitors in automotive security, IoT sensor integration, and smart access systems should assess whether their product architectures intersect with the claim scope as refined through the reissue process. The USPTO’s patentability position, now judicially unreviewable in this proceeding, defines the operative claim boundary.
Should your team run an FTO against USRE043990E?
Any company developing multi-sensor detection systems, vehicle access control technology, or integrated lock-and-stall mechanisms should treat USRE043990E as a live FTO consideration. The reissued patent’s claims may be broader or differently scoped than the original grant, and the exhaustion of judicial review means no further validity narrowing is expected from this litigation line. Product teams building connected vehicle safety or access systems are the primary exposure group.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USRE043990E’s claim language against your product specification, flag reissue prosecution history disclaimers that narrow scope, and surface related patent family members that may carry overlapping claims. Automated monitoring alerts will notify your team if Golden or related parties file new actions citing this patent or its continuation family across any federal forum.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE043990E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Multi-Sensor and Vehicle Security Patent Cases at the Supreme Court
Cases involving reissued sensor and vehicle security patents reviewed or petitioned at the U.S. Supreme Court, including related USPTO patentability disputes.
What this case signals for the sensor technology IP landscape
A Supreme Court rehearing denial caps a long-running patentability dispute over reissued multi-sensor technology claims — with lessons for inventors and challengers alike.
Pro se Supreme Court petitions face near-certain denial without circuit split
The Supreme Court grants review in roughly 1–2% of petitions. Pro se patent petitions face even longer odds absent a clear circuit split or constitutional question. Golden’s 87-day resolution suggests the Court disposed of the petition on threshold grounds. IP professionals advising individual inventors should set realistic expectations about Supreme Court review as a validity challenge strategy.
Reissued patent claims carry distinct vulnerability in USPTO validity proceedings
USRE043990E is a reissued patent, meaning the claims were already examined and modified post-grant. Reissue patents can be subject to intervening rights defenses and heightened scrutiny of claim scope changes. Competitors and potential licensees in the multi-sensor detection space should audit whether the reissue history narrows enforceable claim scope before assessing infringement exposure.
Golden v United — key questions answered
The Supreme Court denied rehearing and the petition was dismissed in Case No. 23-904. This was not a merits ruling on the patentability of USRE043990E. The denial means the Court declined to reconsider its earlier refusal to review the case, leaving the USPTO’s underlying patentability determination undisturbed.
The patent at issue is USRE043990E, a reissued U.S. patent with corrected application number US13/199853. It covers a multi-sensor detection, stall to stop and lock disabling system. The case involved a patentability or invalidity challenge to claims within that reissued patent.
A denial of rehearing at the Supreme Court level means the Court has declined to reconsider its earlier decision not to hear the case. It is strictly procedural and carries no precedential weight on the merits of the underlying patent validity or patentability dispute. All federal judicial avenues are exhausted after such a denial.
The dismissal of the petition does not itself extinguish USRE043990E. The patent remains in the USPTO’s records as issued following the reissue examination. However, the patentability determination from the underlying proceedings stands. Enforceability in any future infringement action would depend on whether those underlying validity findings are res judicata against specific parties.
Supreme Court rehearing petitions — as distinct from petitions for certiorari — are typically disposed of relatively quickly because they ask the Court to reconsider a decision it has already made. The 87-day resolution is consistent with the Court’s standard practice of denying rehearing petitions without extensive deliberation, particularly where no new legal argument or changed circumstance is presented.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.