Golden v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 630

Background

Larry Golden (pro se) is sole inventor and owner of multiple patents and reissue patents (including U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,395,497; 7,636,033; RE43,891; RE43,990; 8,106,752; 8,334,761; 8,531,280; 9,096,189) directed to automated detection/isolation of chemical, biological, and radiological agents and related devices.
Golden sued the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (and alleged a Fifth Amendment taking) claiming government infringement based on numerous DHS solicitations, contracts, and NSF grants that led to development/procurement of >30 accused devices (e.g., M-Lock, HPEMS, various smartphone-based detectors).
The Government moved to dismiss certain device claims (M-Lock, HPEMS) and several claims tied to NSF-funded research on jurisdictional and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds (RCFC 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6)).
Key factual allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint: DHS contracted with iControl to develop/commercialize M-Lock; USAF allegedly solicited/contracted for development of Eureka Aerospace’s HPEMS; NSF grants funded development and testing of multiple portable detection devices.
The court applied standing, Tucker Act jurisdiction principles, and § 1498(a) limits (use/manufacture "for the United States" and "with authorization or consent," which can be implied by contracts, solicitations, or specifications) and evaluated the pleadings under Iqbal/Twombly standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether M-Lock claim pleads §1498(a) use/manufacture "for the Government" with authorization/consent	Golden: DHS contracted with iControl to develop/commercialize M-Lock, so manufacture/use was for Government benefit and impliedly authorized	Government: Complaint fails to allege Government was directly involved or that device was manufactured for Government benefit	Denied Gvt's motion — pleadings sufficiently allege contract-driven development and plausible implied authorization/benefit to Government
Whether HPEMS claim pleads §1498(a) use/manufacture "for the Government" with authorization/consent	Golden: USAF solicitation/contracting for HPEMS supports inference that manufacture/use was for Government and impliedly authorized	Government: Allegations are insufficient—no clear contract award or Government use alleged	Denied Gvt's motion — court reads complaint favorably and finds plausible inference of USAF involvement and implied authorization
Whether NSF grant-related claims satisfy §1498(a) (and jurisdiction)	Golden: NSF grant agreements are grant-related contracts; Government funding and grant conditions (development/testing reports) imply authorization/benefit	Government: Mere funding does not establish authorization/consent or use/manufacture "for the Government" absent retained property rights or other facts	Denied for 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) — §1498(a) is money-mandating; pleadings plausibly allege Government benefit and implied authorization from grant-funded development/testing
Whether Court has jurisdiction and whether pro se plaintiff met pleading standards	Golden: Alleges ownership and patent rights; pro se status warrants liberal construction	Government: Plaintiff must prove jurisdictional facts; some allegations are conclusory	Court: Plaintiff has standing and the complaint, when construed in plaintiff’s favor, sufficiently pleads jurisdictional facts at pleading stage; pro se status considered but does not excuse failures beyond plausibility

Key Cases Cited

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (discussing order of deciding standing and merits)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 534 F.2d 889 (finding program vital to national defense constituted use "for the Government")
TVI Energy Corp. v. Blane, 806 F.2d 1057 (Government authorization/consent may be implied from solicitations/demonstration requirements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual content must allow reasonable inference of liability)