The
decision is actually narrower than that.
This is an affirmation of a decision on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Apple argues that Islam can't have standing because he doesn't own the patent, and that the reason that he doesn't own the patents is the language in the universities bylaws.
More specifically the sentence "shall be the property of the University".
The court then decided that "shall be the property of the University" doesn't effectuate an automatic assignment of title to the university and that, at most, it is a statement of a future intention to assign the patents.
The underlying reasoning for this interpretation seems a bit surprising and inconsistent to me, but that's beside the point.
The court then affirms the prior decision to deny the motion to dismiss with the logic that Islam has standing, or rather, that the lack of standing isn't properly proven. Throughout the opinion they go out of their way to not answer any of the bigger questions.
This doesn't decide
who owns the patents, merely that there is insufficient grounds for dismissal.
Without getting into the actual validity of the patent, or the question on if and how Apple infringed on the patent, the entire matter on who owns the patent is in and of itself enough ammunition to go to trial instead of settling.
Even if one would want to fully embrace the conclusion in the opinion as an immutable element in the actual trial (and one really shouldn't), all it says is that the ownership didn't automatically transfer to the university and thus, that it needs a specific act to transfer over.
Personally I'd argue that the events in 2013 that are described above, could suffice.
But even if it doesn't, on top of all the arguments available to make this case, the university could simply start a case against Islam/Omni, essentially be Apple's stalking horse, and that alone could halt this trial pending outcome of the case brought by the university.
