Revolutionary Concepts Inc (fka REVO)

[Krysti]

A patent assignment transfers ownership rights.Period.

That is stated, more than once, in the quote on which you rely. So, the quote you're relying on doesn't support your conclusion on the transfer of patent ownership rights by REVO.

Here's your conclusion:

Eyetalk365 was granted rights by REVO so that they could sue violators for patent infringement in court, while REVO retained ownership of the patents

Correct, in part. Eyetalk365 was able to sue violators for patent infringements, because they were granted an ASSIGNMENT of the patent rights. That assignment was registered with USPTO.

But REVO did not retain total ownership of the patents.

Here are the reasons:

The patent law provides that only the patent owner and successors in title have standing to sue for patent infringement

Eyetalk365 was able to sue because it is the patent owner or successor in title

However, even if a patent owner does not formally transfer legal title, a party that has been granted all substantial rights under the patent is considered the effective patent owner and has standing to sue for patent infringement.

That's why Eyetalk365 was able to make infringement claims in it's own name.

An effective assignment exists, therefore, when the patent owner conveys substantially all rights to a patent, making the transferee the effective patent owner for standing (lawsuit) purposes.

And there you have it. Clear and straightforward.

The assignment filed with USPTO confirms that Eyetalk365 has ownership rights over the patents.