U.S. Supreme Court Denies Golden v. Samsung Patent Petition
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Larry Golden v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. |
| Case Number | 23-1001 (District of Columbia) |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Duration | Mar 2024 – Apr 2024 45 Days |
| Outcome | Petition Denied — No Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 Edge, S8, S8+, Note 8, Note 20, S20, S20+, S20 Ultra, S21 5G, S21+ 5G, S22, S22+, S22 Ultra Smartphones |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A pro se patent holder and inventor who has pursued multiple patent infringement actions against major technology companies. Golden represented himself without a law firm.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the world’s largest consumer electronics manufacturers, with an extensive portfolio of smartphones. Samsung was represented by Covington & Burling, LLP.
Patents at Issue
Three U.S. utility patents formed the basis of Golden’s infringement claims, relating broadly to multi-sensor detection and communication technologies relevant to modern smartphone architecture.
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,069,189 B2 — Multi-sensor detection and communication technologies
- • U.S. Patent No. 10,163,287 B2 — Multi-sensor detection and communication technologies
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,589,439 B2 — Multi-sensor detection and communication technologies
Developing multi-sensor technology?
Ensure your product has freedom-to-operate in this evolving patent landscape.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The U.S. Supreme Court **denied** Larry Golden’s petition for certiorari, effectively terminating this patent infringement action in favor of Samsung Electronics. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted, as the Court did not reach the merits of any infringement claim.
Key Legal Issues
The 45-day resolution is notably rapid and consistent with the Supreme Court’s standard practice of denying petitions that fail to present a compelling federal question or demonstrate circuit splits warranting high court intervention. This outcome underscores the formidable procedural barriers facing pro se patent holders at the Supreme Court level, highlighting the specialized appellate expertise required for such petitions.
Samsung’s retention of **Covington & Burling, LLP**, a premier global law firm, reflects a deliberate investment in efficiently neutralizing patent assertions. The denial does not constitute a ruling on the merits of infringement or patent validity, but it signals the Court’s decision not to accept the case for review.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Implications
This case highlights critical procedural and patent assertion risks. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Litigation Trends
Learn about common challenges in patent litigation, especially for pro se parties.
- Analyze similar procedural outcomes in high courts
- Track assertion campaigns by individual inventors
- Understand the role of defense counsel in swift resolutions
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own multi-sensor technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Procedural Risk
For pro se litigants at Supreme Court level
3 Active Patents
In multi-sensor detection tech
Patents Remain Active
Unless invalidated in other proceedings
✅ Key Takeaways
Supreme Court certiorari requires demonstrating a circuit split or novel federal question—not merely an adverse outcome below.
Search related case law →Pro se representation at the appellate level creates compounding procedural risks, often leading to swift denials.
Explore appellate strategies →Samsung’s 45-day resolution demonstrates the value of decisive, experienced defense counsel in efficiently neutralizing assertions.
Benchmark defense efficiency →The three patents (US9069189B2, US10163287B2, US9589439B2) remain active and could support future assertions in other venues.
Monitor patent status →Frequently Asked Questions
Three U.S. patents: US9069189B2, US10163287B2, and US9589439B2, covering multi-sensor detection and communication technologies.
The petition was denied and dismissed. The Court did not reach the merits of infringement; the denial reflects failure to meet the threshold for certiorari review, often due to a lack of a compelling federal question or circuit split.
It reinforces that Supreme Court review of patent infringement disputes requires novel federal questions, rather than simply an adverse ruling. Meritorious infringement claims are typically pursued at the district court or ITC levels.
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
- U.S. Supreme Court Docket Search — Case No. 23-1001
- USPTO Patent Center
- PACER Federal Court Records
- 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.