Galen J. Suppes v. Curators of the University of Missouri

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?

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.

Was the Respondent's arbitrary pursuit of courtenforced 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?

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?