Federal Circuit disposition — 2019-100

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: LARRY GOLDEN, dba ATPG Technology,
LLC,
Petitioner
______________________
2019-100
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00307-EGB,
Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Larry Golden petitions for a writ of mandamus.
Mr. Golden has sued the United States in the United
States Court of Federal Claims. His operative Fifth
Amended Complaint seeks damages under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1498(a) for the infringement of 72 claims across nine
different patents and a patent application, and damages
under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by “taking”
the nine patents.
Case: 19-100 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2018

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: GOLDEN 2
On March 31, 2014, the Claims Court issued an order
staying Mr. Golden’s takings claims and directing the
parties to “proceed with Plaintiff’s claims only as they
relate to the alleged patent infringement by the United
States.” In March 2018, the Claims Court denied
Mr. Golden’s motion for summary judgment and granted
the government’s request to dismiss certain of Mr. Gold-
en’s patent infringement allegations.
Mr. Golden filed a notice of appeal from that decision.
On August 1, 2018, after issuing a show cause order and
considering responses from both parties, this court dis-
missed the appeal as premature, noting that the Claims
Court had not issued a final decision or judgment review-
able by this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
The case was subsequently reassigned to a different
Claims Court judge who, on September 18, 2018, directed
the parties to file, on or before October 5, 2018, “separate
status reports identifying which patent claims remain”
and “proposing a schedule for further proceedings in this
matter.” On October 1, 2018, Mr. Golden filed this peti-
tion asking the court to either adjudicate his takings
claims or to direct the Claims Court to decide them.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only
where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable
right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal
channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3)
the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circum-
stances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of
Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Mr. Golden has
not met this demanding standard for relief.
First, Mr. Golden has not clearly and indisputably
shown that the Claims Court erred in staying his takings
claims. The Claims Court concluded that those takings
claims appeared to be duplicative of his claims under
§ 1498(a). Adjudication of the takings claims could there-
fore await adjudication of the § 1498(a) claims. That
Case: 19-100 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2018

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: GOLDEN 3
determination has not been shown to be clearly contrary
to the law or the record here.
Second, Mr. Golden has not shown that any delay
here on the part of the Claims Court in adjudicating
Mr. Golden’s claims is so egregious as to warrant man-
damus relief. The Claims Court has adjudicated a num-
ber of the claims asserted by Mr. Golden and has recently
sought input from the parties as to what remains and how
the case should proceed. We expect that all claims in the
case will now be addressed. Moreover, any delay in
reaching a final decision in this case is in no small way
attributable to Mr. Golden’s own strategy of adding claims
every time he believes the government has prolonged this
case.
Finally, Mr. Golden has not shown entitlement to
mandamus relief concerning the Claims Court’s rejection
of his motion to supplement his complaint, denial of his
motion for summary judgment, and determinations
concluding his claims, because he has not shown that an
appeal after a final judgment in the case is not an ade-
quate alternative means to obtain the relief he seeks.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
F OR THE COURT
Nov. 5, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s32
Case: 19-100 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2018

-- 3 of 3 --