Reoforce, Inc. v. United States

Opinion

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…”