3 ms·

Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal

• dragonwriter 7y ago
  > In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. No that's not what standing is. They have to establish a legally cognizable claim to harm to establish standing; actual harm is what an actual trial exists to establish. A dispute of fact over who holds rights at issue would be a perfectly normal issue for trial. > I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive A defense motion to dismiss necessarily must state that the plaintiff has no legally cognizable claim as a matter of law; if there is anything relevant that might potentially be proven, it is automatically viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. You can't make a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff proves something, the very idea of that acknowledges that there is a disputes issue of fact necessary to resolve the case, calling for a trial.