Patent Procedures

  • Ronald W. Tank


A patent is the instrument by which the federal government conveys the legal title to mining claims. It is a title in fee simple unless it includes specified restrictions or reservations to the United States. It is not necessary to patent a mining claim and there is no time limit within which a claim must be taken to patent. One must weigh the advantages and disadvantages on a case-by-case basis. Some of the disadvantages of taking a claim to patent include (1) cost and effort, (2) possible provocation of contests with an adverse claimant or the government, particularly with regard to discovery, (3) inability to adjust the boundaries or rotate the claim after patent, (4) incurring of property taxes, and (5) dower rights attached to a patent in those states recognizing dower rights. Some of the advantages of a patent are (1) a fee simple title defensible against any encroachment or challenge, (2) title in fee that may be used as collateral to support mining activities, (3) elimination of the burden of assessment work and associated filing requirements, and (4) rights to surface resources including the land itself unless these rights are restricted in the patent. The advantages are particularly important to those attempting to hold the large blocks of claims that characterize many modern mineral prospects and may be of additional importance in view of numerous proposals to modify the General Mining Laws. Since 1872 the federal government has transferred over three million acres of the public domain to private ownership through more than 64,000 mineral patents, but most claims are never brought to patent.


Placer Location Placer Deposit Placer Mining Mill Site Mining Claim 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Suggested Reading

  1. Clark, R. (1977), The mining law: PLLRC recommendations—What happened to them?, Denver L.54:551–566.Google Scholar
  2. Knutson, R., and Morris, H., Jr. (1980), Locating, maintaining, and patenting groups or large blocks of mining claims, Proc. Rocky Mount. Mineral L. Inst. 26:517–622.Google Scholar
  3. Knutson, R., and Morris, H. (1981), Coping with the general mining law of 1872 in the 1980’s, Land and Water Law Review 16:411–455.Google Scholar
  4. Marsh, W., and Sherwood, D. (1980), Metamorphosis in mining law: Federal legislative and regulatory amendment and supplementation of the General Mining Law since 1955, Proc. Rocky Mount. Mineral L. Inst. 26:209–312.Google Scholar
  5. Mock, B. (1977), Mining law trends, Denver L. J. 54:567–578.Google Scholar
  6. Moran, R., and Ebner, D. (1978), The mineral patent, Proc. Rocky Mount. Mineral L. Inst. 24:269–308.Google Scholar
  7. Noble, H. (1980), Environmental regulation of hardrock mining on public lands: Bringing the 1872 law up to date, Harvard Environmental Law Review 4:145–163.Google Scholar
  8. Public Land Law Review Commission (1970), One-Third of the Nation’s Land: A Report to the President, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  9. Sherwood, D. (1970), Mining law at the crossroads, Land Water Rev. 6:161–183.Google Scholar
  10. Strauss, P. (1974), Rules, adjudications and other sources of law in an executive department: Reflections on the Interior Department’s administration of the mining law, Columbia L. Rev. 74:1231–1275.Google Scholar
  11. Sweeney, J. (1970), Should you patent your mining claim, Proc. Rocky Mount. Mineral L. Inst. 16:729–756.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald W. Tank
    • 1
  1. 1.Lawrence UniversityAppletonUSA

Personalised recommendations