United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

THE PORTLAND MINT, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-2154 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00518-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank Horn. ______________________

Decided: May 30, 2024 ______________________

LEE VARTAN, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, Roseland, NJ, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre- sented by JONATHAN DAVID SHAFFER, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Tysons Corner, VA.

ALISON VICKS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di- vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________ Case: 22-2154 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 05/30/2024

2 THE PORTLAND MINT v. US

Before DYK, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. The Portland Mint (“Portland Mint”) delivered truck- loads of coins to a foundry designated by the United States Mint (“U.S. Mint”) pursuant to a regulation, 31 C.F.R. § 100.11, that provided for redemption of mutilated coins. The coins were melted down and used to make new coins. The U.S. Mint refused to pay for the shipment on the ground that “a very high percentage of coins submitted” were counterfeit. J.A. 288. Portland Mint, alleging that the coins were genuine, brought five claims against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) for (1) a violation of 31 C.F.R. § 100.11, (2) breach of an implied contract, (3) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, (4) a Fifth Amendment takings claim, and (5) an Equal Access to Justice Act claim for fees. The Claims Court dismissed all five claims, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction for claims one and two, and that all five claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We find that the Claims Court erred in dis- missing claim two for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In light of our reversal as to claim two, we affirm the dismissal of the remaining three merits claims. We do not reach claim five concerning attorneys’ fees. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Beginning in 1911, the U.S. Mint established a Muti- lated Coin Redemption Program (“Redemption Program”) where individuals or businesses could submit bent or Case: 22-2154 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 05/30/2024

THE PORTLAND MINT v. US 3

partial coins to the U.S. Mint in exchange for payment. 1 The U.S. Mint would then use these mutilated coins to make new coins. While the Redemption Program has re- cently been suspended, it was in effect during the period in question here. The regulation governing the Redemption Program provided that individuals or businesses that par- ticipated in the Redemption Program “may be subject to a certification process[,] . . . may be required to provide doc- umentation for how the participant came into custody of the bent or partial coins,” and “[t]he United States Mint reserves the right to test samples from any submission to authenticate the material.” 31 C.F.R. § 100.11(c)(1), (3), (4). The Redemption Program regulation also provided that the U.S. Mint would not redeem submitted coins in certain circumstances. No redemption will be made when: (i) A submission, or any portion of a sub- mission, demonstrates a pattern of inten- t