1. Was the Judgment's demand of perpetual (no
limit in time or geography) and unconditional
payment of remunerations of sixteen years of
Defendant Suppes' "completed mental elements"
(employer's definition of "invention") a prohibited
practice of Patent Misuse?

2. Did the state circuit court improperly create new
patent law, in violation of existing Patent Law,
when the court ordered Suppes perpetually to pay
the Curators all remuneration Suppes received
for inventions :
(i) for which no patent application was made,
(ii) for which Plaintiff did not patent,
(ii) for Suppes' mere "transfer" of an invention,
or
(iii) for over fifty inventions with no regard to
which Party properly owned rights to each
invention or even if there were any legally
enforceable rights to be owned on any
specific invention.

3. Was the Respondent's arbitrary pursuit of court-
enforced demands of perpetual ownership of
sixteen years of Suppes' "completed mental
elements" (Respondent's definition of "invention")
a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution?

4. Was the Appeal Court Opinion that "Only if the
University affirmative [ly] waives its rights to an
invention may an employee seek a patent for the
invention independently." a violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution?

Was the Judgment's demand of perpetual (no limit in time or geography) and unconditional payment of remunerations of sixteen years of Defendant Suppes' 'completed mental elements' (employer's definition of 'invention') a prohibited practice of Patent-Misuse?