Case Overview

In a swift and definitive ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Larry Golden’s petition for certiorari against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., closing one of the more persistent patent infringement campaigns targeting the consumer smartphone industry. Filed on March 8, 2024, and resolved in just 45 days by April 22, 2024, the case centered on three patents—US9069189B2, US10163287B2, and US9589439B2—allegedly infringed by fourteen Samsung Galaxy devices spanning multiple product generations.

The outcome reinforces a broader pattern emerging in smartphone patent infringement litigation: pro se and small-inventor assertions against major consumer electronics manufacturers face increasingly steep procedural and substantive hurdles at the nation’s highest court. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams monitoring freedom-to-operate risk in the mobile technology space, this case offers instructive signals about petition viability, claim durability, and the strategic weight of institutional legal representation at the appellate level.

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case involved three U.S. patents focused on interconnected detection and communication systems—technology areas that intersect with modern smartphone sensor suites, including environmental monitoring, proximity detection, and networked alert capabilities. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• • US9069189B2 — Multi-sensor detection and communication technologies
• • US10163287B2 — Monitoring and alert system architectures
• • US9589439B2 — Integrated sensor and communication device configurations

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Supreme Court **denied** Larry Golden’s petition for certiorari. The case was terminated on the basis of petition dismissal. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and no remand was ordered. The denial is final as to this proceeding.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court typically grants review in fewer than 2% of petitions. Denial does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the underlying infringement claims—it means the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to hear the case. Factors influencing certiorari denial often include:

• **Absence of Circuit Conflict:** The Supreme Court prioritizes cases where federal circuits have reached conflicting conclusions on important legal questions.
• **Pro Se Presentation:** Petitions lacking structured legal argumentation aligned with the Court’s jurisdictional criteria face practical disadvantages.
• **Prior Adjudication History:** Cases with extensive lower-court histories may not present the “clean” legal question the Court prefers.

For the three patents at issue—particularly US9069189B2 and US9589439B2, which cover integrated sensor-communication architectures—the failure to obtain Supreme Court review leaves prior adverse determinations intact, effectively narrowing the viable enforcement pathway for these patent assets.