1. “Whether Uniloc, the undisputed owner of the patent-in-suit at the time the complaint was filed, had standing under Article III of the Constitution to sue for infringement of the patent.”
2. “Whether the district court erred in concluding that Uniloc lacked Article III standing based on the theoretical possibility that Fortress, Uniloc’s secured lender, could sublicense the patent-in-suit.”
3. “Whether the district court erred in concluding that Fortress had the ability to sublicense the patent, including for past infringement, at the time the complaint was filed.”
4. “Whether Uniloc 2017 LLC, which acquired the patent-in-suit while this action was pending, should be substituted as plaintiff.”
“Uniloc is collaterally estopped from arguing that it did not grant a license, including a right to sublicense, to Fortress, and that the existence of that license deprived Uniloc of standing. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of these cases for lack of standing.”
