“undermine” the prior appellate affirmance of standing. Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111, 117 (3d Cir.1997). And, we see no clear error in the previous decision on standing that would warrant an extraordinary review at this stage. Indeed, on the merits, this is an easy question. We review de novo the district court’s determination of a party’s standing, while reviewing any factual findings relevant to that determination for clear error. SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2007). Gore’s argument hinges on the absence of a written instrument transfer ring to BPV what it contends was the virtual assignment from Goldfarb to Bard Inc. See Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); 35 U.S.C. § 261 (“Applications for patent,
holding that an exclusive license granting the licensor a reversionary interest in the patent in the event of the licensees bankruptcy was a grant of all substantial rights such that the licensee could sue for patent infringement holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent holding that employers have standing to sue holding that a written instrument was needed to document the transfer of proprietary rights to support standing to sue for patent infringement holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement