Court Opinion

ID: 9910294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 15:00:53.801426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:03.611771
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2139    Document: 13     Page: 1   Filed: 12/15/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    LARRY GOLDEN,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-2139
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:23-cv-00185-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

    Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     The United States moves for summary affirmance of
 the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims.
 Larry Golden opposes the motion and separately moves for
 relief from the judgment. The United States opposes Mr.
 Golden’s motion. Mr. Golden replies. For the following
Case: 23-2139    Document: 13     Page: 2    Filed: 12/15/2023

 2                                              GOLDEN v. US

 reasons, we grant the United States’ motion to summarily
 affirm and deny Mr. Golden’s motion.
     In Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir.
 2020), we described the background and prior litigation
 that form the basis of the underlying complaint. We there-
 fore summarize that background only briefly here.
     In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security peti-
 tioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes
 review (“IPR”) of Mr. Golden’s U.S. Patent No. RE43,990.
 During those proceedings, Mr. Golden moved to cancel the
 challenged claims of the patent while proposing new sub-
 stitute claims. In 2015, the Board issued its final written
 decision, which granted Mr. Golden’s request to cancel his
 claims but found his substituted claims were unpatentable.
 Mr. Golden sought rehearing, which the Board denied on
 November 17, 2015. Mr. Golden did not appeal, allowing
 the decision to become final in January 2016. See 35 U.S.C.
 § 142; 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a).
      In 2019, Mr. Golden filed suit in the Court of Federal
 Claims, alleging, inter alia, that the cancellation of his
 claims during the IPR amounted to an unlawful taking of
 his property that required compensation under the Fifth
 Amendment. In May 2019, the Court of Federal Claims
 granted the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that
 Mr. Golden’s voluntary amendment of his claims did not
 constitute a cognizable taking of property. On appeal, we
 affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Golden, 955 F.3d at
 989.
      On February 7, 2023, Mr. Golden filed this complaint
 in the Court of Federal Claims again seeking compensation
 for the alleged taking due to the cancellation of the claims
 of his patent. See ECF No. 7-2 at A031-A032. The govern-
 ment moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdic-
 tion. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion on
 the ground that that the complaint was out of time under
 the applicable six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C.
Case: 23-2139    Document: 13      Page: 3     Filed: 12/15/2023

 GOLDEN v. US                                                3

 § 2501. Mr. Golden then filed this appeal. We have juris-
 diction over his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
     Here, the judgment of the trial court dismissing the
 complaint is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no
 “substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
 exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
 Cir. 1994). Mr. Golden clearly filed his complaint outside
 of the six-year jurisdictional filing deadline. Further, this
 court has already resolved the merits of Mr. Golden’s
 claims in his earlier appeal such that the Court of Federal
 Claims was clearly correct to dismiss the complaint.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance
 is granted. The judgment is summarily affirmed.
     (2) All other pending motions are denied.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 December 15, 2023
      Date