United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
April 28, 2017
ERRATA
______________________
Appeal No. 2015-5084
REOFORCE, INC., THEODORE SIMONSON,
RONALD STEHN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
Decided: March 17, 2017
Precedential Opinion
______________________
Please make the following changes:
On page 4, lines 4-13, delete:
Once established, a mining claimant re-
ceives “a ‘patent,’ that is, an official
document issued by the United States
attesting that fee title to the land is in
the private owner.” Kunkes v. United
States,
78 F.3d 1549, 1551 (Fed. Cir.
1996). A patented mining claim is “a
property right in the full sense.” Union
Oil Co. v. Smith,
249 U.S. 337, 349
(1919).
2 REOFORCE, INC. v. US
Until a patent issues, the mining claim-
ant has an “unpatented” mining claim, a
“unique form of property.”
Best, 371
U.S. at 335–36.
Replace the deleted language with this paragraph:
The Mining Law allows the holder of a
valid mining claim to apply for “a ‘pa-
tent,’ that is, an official document is-
sued by the United States attesting that
fee title to the land is in the private
owner.” Kunkes v. United States,
78
F.3d 1549, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1996). [in-
sert footnote 1] Until a patent issues,
however, the mining claimant has an
“unpatented” mining claim, a “unique
form of property.”
Best, 371 U.S. at 335–
36; see also Union Oil Co. v. Smith,
249
U.S. 337, 349 (1919) (an unpatented
mining claim is “a property right in the
full sense”).
Insert Footnote 1, as indicated above, to read:
“Since 1994, Congress has imposed a
moratorium on the processing of new
patent applications. See Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 103-332, 108 Stat.
2499 (1994).”
The following paragraph should start with the sen-
tence currently at page 4, line 13:
“An unpatented claim…”
