Standing issue in WiNet case

It is well-established that “every federal appellate court has a special obligation to ‘satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review,’ even though the parties are prepared to concede it,” and that the principle applies to the issue of Article III standing. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230–31 (1990). “To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling.’” Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2565 (2019) (quoting Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 733 (2008)).

Here, the only basis on which WiNet has asserted that the alleged infringement caused it an injury required for Article III standing is its asserted ownership of the ’374 patent. We have now been presented with evidence that casts grave doubt on whether WiNet has any ownership interest in the patent