________________________________________________________________
Update: May 21, 2017
The Federal Circuit issued an errata with respect to the Reoforce opinion on April 28, 2017. The errata significantly changes the language of the decision in some respects: [Link]. For example, the correction now states that an unpatented mining claim is a property right in the full sense:
The Mining Law allows the holder of a valid mining claim to apply for “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). [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”).
________________________________________________________________
The Federal Circuit issued a different kind of patent opinion last week — a decision relating to patents on mining claims. Apparently, the patents that the US government issues for mining claims are considered property rights in the full sense:
Once established, a mining claimant receives “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).
REOFORCE, INC. v. US, No. 2015-5084 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2017)(slip op. at page 4).
The court’s opinion in REOFORCE, INC. v. US, No. 2015-5084 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2017) is available [here] and [here].