Whether the original inventor maintains statutory standing to sue for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 281 even after assigning the patent, if the assignment was contingent on royalty payments that were never made

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 100 (d) identifies a “patentee” as “to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.” 1. If the original inventor of the patent “to whom the patent was issued” is expressly included in the definition of “patentee” under 35 U.S.C. § 100 (d), does that person maintain statutory standing to sue for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 281 (“[a] patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent”)? 2. If the original inventor of the patent assigns such patent to another party subject to a royalty agreement, is such assignment, and any subsequent assignment, contingent upon payment of the agreed upon royalties? 3. If no royalties are ever paid in furtherance of the assignment agreement, is the assignment devoid of consideration, illusory and unenforceable? 4. If an assignment of a patent misidentifies the inventor to defraud that inventor of royalties, is that assignment void and unenforceable? 5. If the Federal Circuit is presented with a fundamental issue of law as to the standing of an inventor to sue under Title 35 and that court does not provide any explanation for its affirmance, does it violate or undermine its mandate under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 “to reduce the widespread lack of uniformity ii and uncertainty of legal doctrine that exist[ed] in the administration of patent law’? H.R. Rep. No. 97-312, p. 23 (1981).