IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Court upholds dismissal of infringement suit for untimeliness and lack of jurisdiction, (Mar 11, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court also rejected the plaintiff appellant’s challenge to the trial judge’s impartiality, finding no basis for disqualification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a renewed patent infringement suit in a nonprecedential decision, concluding that the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined both that the allegations fell outside the applicable sixyear statute of limitations for actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s attempt to recast those allegations as a Fifth Amendment takings claim. The appellate court emphasized that § 1498 provides the exclusive remedy for patent infringement by the government and therefore forecloses a takings theory based on the same conduct (Golden v. U.S., No. 25-2128 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff/ appellant, Golden, is the named inventor on a family of patents directed to systems for locking, unlocking, or disabling locks in response to detecting chemical, radiological, and biological hazards. At issue in this appeal were three of his patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,163,287 (the '287 patent), 9,589,439 (the '439 patent), and 9,096,189 (the '189 patent).

Golden first sued the United States in May 2013 under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, alleging that the Department of Homeland Security had infringed his patents by soliciting proposals for cellular devices through its “Cell-All” initiative. He claimed that devices produced by manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung, and LG for use in the initiative infringed his patented technology. That case was dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims in 2021 after multiple amended complaints, with the court finding that Golden had failed to cure earlier deficiencies in his infringement allegations. The dismissal was entered with prejudice, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling in Golden v. United States, No. 2022-1196, 2022 WL 4103287 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) (Golden I).

First appeal. In May 2023, Golden filed a new lawsuit under § 1498, again alleging infringement of the same three patents, but this time focusing on a different government program and a different accused manufacturer: Google. He also filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, alleging bias. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint based on claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine and denied the disqualification motion.

On Golden’s appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that the doctrines of claim preclusion and Kessler barred the individual's claims. It also upheld the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the trial judge, finding no basis for recusal. Further, the appellate court found that the newly filed claims were legally indistinguishable from those raised in the plaintiff’s earlier litigation, which had resulted in a final judgment on the merits.

Second appeal. Golden again appealed, challenging the Federal Circuit’s dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his motion to disqualify the Court of Federal Claims judge presiding over his case. The Federal Circuit agreed with the decision of the lower court, citing two reasons. First, the Court of Federal Claims correctly found that Golden’s allegations are outside of the six-year limitations period, as Golden filed his complaint in 2025, while the allegations in the complaint occurred prior to the six-year mark of 2019. Second, the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that it does not have jurisdiction over Golden’s patent-infringement-based takings claim. As the Federal Circuit explained in the previous appeal, a cause of action alleging infringement by the government under the Fifth Amendment is unavailable to patent owners, as § 1498 provides the only avenue for a patent action to bring an action against the government for patent infringement. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear takings claims based on alleged patent infringement by the government.

The Federal Circuit further agreed with the Court of Federal Claims’ decision denying Golden’s motion to disqualify based on the judge’s previous adverse rulings, as the court has previously observed that judicial rulings almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion in denying Golden’s motion to disqualify.

The Case is No. 25-2128.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Larry Golden, pro se. Grant Drews Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, for the U.S.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews