Opinion

Golden v. Apple, Inc.

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Oct 20, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY GOLDEN, Case No. 22-cv-04152-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

V. DISMISS

APPLE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 12

Defendant.

The motion to dismiss is granted. The claims asserted in the complaint are frivolous.

Even if they were not frivolous, Golden’s patent infringement claims against Apple are barred by

issue preclusion because they have been fully litigated and decided. See Golden v. United States,

156 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2021), aff'd, Golden v. United States, No. 13-cv-00307, 2022 WL

4103287 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022). And Golden’s antitrust allegations fail to state an even

remotely plausible claim. Golden does not (and cannot) plausibly allege a conspiracy or an injury

“of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent.” City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 20

F.4th 441, 456 (9th Cir. 2021).

The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Golden has been pressing these

frivolous claims (or some variation thereof) for nearly 10 years in multiple jurisdictions. This is

the rare case where dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate at the outset.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2022 Loo.

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.