1. Whether "the exclusive Right" in inventions as written in the Constitution is a fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law "exclusive right" and U.S. Const, Art 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 sufficiently empowered the US Congress, irrespective of the Fourteenth Amendments, to enact 42 U.S. Code § 1983 to reach a private party without state action when the party burdens "the exclusive Right" and 42 U.S. Code § 1985 without class animus when the private party conspires to burden "the exclusive Right" by claiming false ownership of inventor's Patent.

2. Whether "the exclusive Right" in inventions as written in the Constitution is fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law "exclusive right" and U.S. Const, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 sufficiently empowered the US congress, irrespective of the Commerce Clause, to enact 15 U.S. Code § 1 to reach a private party for claiming false ownership of inventor's Patent burdening "the exclusive Right" causing restraint to use the Patent and to enact 15 U.S. Code § 2 for taking substantial steps to take over the monopoly power of inventors patent.

3. Whether an Agreement between an inventor and an employer corporation is actionable under the Sherman Act Section 1 or 15 U.S. Code § 1 even when such Agreement is labeled as an Employee Agreement. Alternately if this Court in Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 (1984), foreclosed inventors' Constitutional Right to be the Constitutional anchor for "the exclusive Right" in Invention to be secured on barring an inventor from being a separate entity from corporation to bring action against the corporation under 15 U.S. Code § 1.

Whether the exclusive Right in inventions as written in the Constitution is a fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law exclusive right