# Golden v. Apple, Inc.

> District Court, N.D. California · October 20, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073288

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** October 20, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073288

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073288. Public record. Not legal advice.