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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
