Larry Golden vs. Google: AI Chip Patent Case Transferred to California
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Larry Golden v. Google, LLC |
| Case Number | 6:25-cv-00434 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Western District of Texas (transferred to N.D. California) |
| Duration | Sep 2025 – Jan 2026 4 months |
| Outcome | Venue Transferred — Procedural Win for Google |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Edge TPU, Google Tensor CPU Series (G1–G5), TPU Series (TPUv1 through TPUv7) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A pro se patent plaintiff and inventor with an extensive litigation history asserting patents related to multi-sensor detection systems and connected device technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
Global technology leader and subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., with a significant proprietary AI hardware portfolio, including its TPU and Tensor chip families.
The Patents at Issue
This case involved five U.S. patents asserted against Google’s AI processor portfolio, focusing on sensor-integrated detection and connected device technologies. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
- • US8,334,761B2 — Sensor-integrated detection and communication technologies
- • US10,163,287B2 — Connected device monitoring systems
- • US11,645,898B2 — Advanced sensor integration and communication
- • US10,984,619B2 — Multi-sensor detection architecture
- • USRE043,891E — Reissued patent covering earlier sensor-communication inventions
Developing similar AI hardware?
Assess the patent landscape for AI chips and sensor integration to mitigate infringement risk.
Litigation Timeline & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Western District of Texas **transferred** Case No. 6:25-cv-00434 to the **Northern District of California** pursuant to the court’s ruling on Google’s motion to transfer venue. The Clerk was directed to transfer the matter and close the docket in Texas. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was considered at this stage. The infringement claims remain live before the transferee court.
Venue Transfer Analysis: Legal Reasoning
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district where it might have been brought when transfer serves “the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “the interest of justice.”
- • Location of Google’s principal place of business in the Northern District of California (Mountain View, CA)
- • Witness and evidence proximity: Google’s engineers, source code, and technical documentation concentrated in California
- • Court congestion and familiarity: N.D. California has extensive experience with semiconductor and AI patent cases
- • Plaintiff’s lack of meaningful Texas connections as a pro se litigant
Legal Significance
This transfer ruling contributes to a well-documented pattern: **Western District of Texas courts granting venue transfers in patent cases filed against Silicon Valley defendants**, particularly following the Federal Circuit’s guidance in In re Google LLC. The case also highlights the **evidentiary challenge facing patent holders asserting sensor-based communication patents against AI chip architectures**.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for AI Chips
This case highlights critical IP risks in the rapidly evolving AI hardware sector. Choose your next step:
📋 Analyze AI Chip Patent Landscape
Explore the patent families asserted against Google’s AI processors.
- Identify key AI chip patent holders
- Examine claim construction for sensor-communication patents
- Monitor related reexamination activity
🔍 Check My AI Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your AI processor or hardware product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Proprietary AI chip architectures
5 Patents Asserted
Covering sensor-communication tech
FTO Essential
For new AI hardware designs
✅ Key Takeaways
Venue transfer under § 1404(a) resolved this case procedurally within 126 days — demonstrating its power as a first-line defense.
Search related case law →Pro se assertions against major technology defendants face compounding structural disadvantages in complex IP litigation.
Explore precedents →Asserting broad sensor patents against specialized AI hardware demands robust claim charts and expert declarations.
View expert analysis tools →Frequently Asked Questions
Five U.S. patents: US8,334,761B2; US10,163,287B2; US11,645,898B2; US10,984,619B2; and USRE043,891E — covering sensor integration and connected device communication technologies.
The court granted Google’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding that the Northern District of California — where Google’s principal operations, witnesses, and evidence are located — was the more appropriate and convenient venue.
No. The transfer closes the Texas docket administratively. The infringement allegations remain pending before the Northern District of California.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Locator
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 28 U.S.C. § 1404
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.