The government concedes that the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Christy's illegal ex-action claim but argues for the first time on appeal that the court lacked jurisdiction over Christy's takings claim. Shortly after this case's submission, we issued Golden v. United States , 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020), which straightforwardly resolves two of the three issues raised here. First, Golden disposes of the government's argument that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over Christy's takings claim.
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 therefore summarize that background only briefly here.
(“Case Number 5”); See Golden v. Apple, Inc., et al., C/A No. 6:20-cv-02270-JD (D.S.C.) (Report and Recommendation pending recommending summary dismissal as frivolous) (“Case Number 4”); Golden v. Apple Inc., et al., C/A No. 6:19-cv-02557-DCC, 2020 WL 415896 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2020), aff'd 819 Fed.Appx. 930 (Fed. Cir. 2020), petition for cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1067 (2021) (“Case Number 3”); Golden v. United States, C/A No. 1:19-cv-00104-EGB (Fed. Cl.), dismissal aff'd 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Case Number 2”); Golden v. United States, C/A No 1:13-cv-00307-EGB (Fed. Cl.) (pending) (“Case Number 1”).
Mr. Golden has previously asserted his patents in a variety of suits and venues against other defendants. See Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2023-1161, 2023 WL 3400595, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2023) (detailing the history of Mr. Golden's patent-infringement filings); Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 983-86 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same).
We also review questions of law de novo. See Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION
Accord, Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, 15 F.4th 1146, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The court also held that the new IPR system does not violate due process when applied to pre-AIA patents.
As this court has explained, "28 U.S.C. § 1498 provides the only avenue for a patent owner to bring an action against the government for patent infringement." Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Thereafter, Mr. Golden restyled his patent infringement claims as takings, antitrust, and unjust enrichment claims and filed additional cases in the Court of Federal Claims and District of South Carolina. See, e.g., Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming the dismissal of patent-infringement-based takings claims); Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 21-2160, 2022 WL 986984 (4th Cir. Mar. 31, 2022) (affirming dismissal of antitrust and unjust enrichment claims); Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 221229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) (affirming the dismissal of patent infringement and antitrust claims). Notwithstanding the prior dismissals, Mr. Golden again filed suit against Apple in the Northern District of California for the same patent infringement, antitrust, and unjust enrichment claims.
Where jurisdiction was not determined based on resolution of factual disputes, we decide de novo the correctness of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. See Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation v. United States, 672 F.3d 1021, 1029-30 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A
Our precedent dictates that "the Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to hear takings claims based on alleged patent infringement by the government." Golden v. United States, 955 F.3d 981, 986-88 (Fed. Cir. 2020). "Those claims . . . are to be pursued exclusively under 28 U.S.C. § 1498," id. at 988, as patent infringement claims.