5. On October 7, 2014, Scott McNulty and loengine executed a patent assignment, transferring all rights of Patent No. 8,539,047 (047 patent) covering flash drive technology from McNulty to loengine. On the same day, McNulty effectuated a certificate of formation of loengine. The certificate of formation was filed with the Secretary of the State of Delaware on the following day. In essence, McNulty transferred a patent issued for his invention to an LLC that he created. In December 2014, Ioengine sued Imation Corp. and Interactive Media Corp. arguing they had infringed the 047 patent. In December 2016, following two years of pretrial motions, Imation filed a motion to dismiss Ioengine's complaint for lack of standing. Imation contended that Ioengine did not exist when the patent assignment was made because the certificate of formation had not been filed until the day after the patent assignment. Since loengine did not exist when the patent assignment was executed, it never received the rights of the patent and therefore did not have jurisdiction. Based on the facts, was Ionengine considered to be de jure when the patent assignment was made? Can Ioengine alternatively be considered de facto when the patent assignment was made? Explain your reasoning for both questions. What are the implications to the case if Ioengine could be considered de jure or de facto? [Ioengine LLC v. Interactive Media Corporation, Dist. Court, D. Delaware LEXIS 758 (2017).]