Case Information
*1 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…”