Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (1982)). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has held that, assuming “the absence of express statutory language precluding the formation of a property right,” a cognizable property interest in a government permit or license requires both a “right to transfer” and a “right to exclude.” Members of Peanut Quota Holders Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 421 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2005). The government argues that, as a matter of law, a medical license does not meet either of these requirements. The Court agrees. First, it is clear that the holder of a medical license cannot sell or transfer his medical license to another individual or entity; a medical license can only be obtained by-meeting the requirements specified in state law for the holders of such licenses. See Webster, 74 Fed.Cl. at 447 (<HOLDING>). Dr. Filler’s arguments to the contrary are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the verification of mishlers medical license was part of the protected property interest in the license and reversing the district courts dismissal of his complaint (B) holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent (C) holding governments repudiation of license gave patentee right to terminate license (D) holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause (E) holding that because plaintiff does not have the right to sell assign or otherwise transfer her medical license a medical license does not possess the requisite indicia of transferability
Output (English): holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause