i'm not competent to explain standing requirements, but I did say that it would be more difficult, not impossible. While I certainly agree that license issuer p

i'm not competent to explain standing requirements, but I did say that it would be more difficult, not impossible. While I certainly agree that license issuer probably has standing to sue or defend, I also think that any complexity around who owns what would necessarily complicate discovery, potentially add other litigants to the case, and provide an opponent with more colourable arguments that they don't have standing. The goal of litigation is frequently just to make even a doomed case too expensive to continue (far too often! lobby for Anti-SLAPP in your jurisdiction). I'd think complex ownership questions would be a boon for that sort of cynicism.