Golden v. United States

 
DOCKET NO.
OP. BELOW
SUBJECT
Takings

Question(s) Presented

“If the Government: on the Executive level accepts a person’s intellectual property, passes it on to a government agency to be used with the public without paying just compensation; on the Legislative level accepts a person’s intellectual property, passes it on to a government agency to be used with the public without paying just compensation; on the Executive level breaches an implied-in-fact contract to pay just compensation for the use of a person’s intellectual property with the public without paying just compensation; on the Legislative level breaches an implied in-fact contract to pay just compensation for the use of a person’s intellectual property with the public without paying just compensation; after inviting the intellectual property owner to several events (i.e. ‘SBIR Tour’ in Colorado where several government agencies discussed and accepted the intellectual property; ‘TRUST’ Industry Day in California where a government agency discussed and accepted the intellectual property; Oakridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee where a collaborative agreement was formed for use of the intellectual property; collaborative agreements was formed with Federally Funded Research Laboratories (i.e. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Navy Research Laboratory (NRL)) for the use of the intellectual property with the public without paying just compensation; and, two trips to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) where the agency discussed and accepted the intellectual property, etc.) and used the intellectual property with the public in the form of soliciting request for information (RFI), request for proposals (RFP), grant applications, without paying just compensation; agency project managers and contracting officers for at least that of Department of Homeland Security breached implied-in-fact contracts to pay just compensation; government agency (DHS) not authorized to challenged intellectual property rights through a petition for Intra Partes Review (IPR) causes a ‘taking’ of the intellectual property without paying just compensation; administrative court initiates a petition for Intra Partes Review (IPR) from an unauthorized governmental agency (DHS) that causes a ‘taking’ of the intellectual property without paying just compensation; administrative court initiates a ‘frivolous’ petition for Intra Partes Review (IPR) that violates statue and procedure (initiating the review with unauthorized prior art that does not antedate the challenged patent and claims) causes a ‘taking’ of the intellectual property without paying just compensation; frames all of the government ‘intentional’ use with the public (described above) as government ‘incidental’ use with the public of the intellectual property, causes a ‘taking’ of the intellectual property without paying just compensation; ‘takes’ the intellectual property in any or all the ways described in this question; has the Government ‘taken’ private property under the Fifth Amendment Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the benefit of the public without paying just compensation?”

Posts About this Case

Date
Proceedings and Orders
October 1, 2020
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
October 19, 2020
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 9, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a).