so long as the initial plaintiff “had standing at the time the suit was filed.” Uniloc USA, 2019 WL 690290, at *1 (citing Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. CIV. 05-3165 (RBK), 2008 WL 5401604, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008), aff'd, 374 Fed.Appx. 956 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

In other words, a party that is substituted in under Rule 25(c) cannot assert its own substantive rights but can only assert those claims of the original party. Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., 2008 WL 5401604, *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008) (dismissing the plaintiff's claim for lack of standing where the plaintiff had transferred its ownership interest in the patent to another party before filing suit and holding that the substitution of the current patent owner under Rule 25(c) did not cure the standing defect); see also Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg, LLC, 2013 WL 5674834, *3-6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013) (“[A]s the successor in interest, IDSI cannot two years into the litigation assert its own claims and defenses as to the original complaint.”)

In other words, regardless whether the Court permits substitution, this lawsuit cannot proceed unless Uniloc USA and Uniloc Luxembourg had standing at the time the suit was filed. See Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. CIV. 05-3165 (RBK), 2008 WL 5401604, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008), aff'd, 374 F. App'x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dismissing action where "Mars, because of its lack of standing, could not assert a claim of infringement of the '589 patent, and therefore MEI, joined as a successor in interest, cannot do so"). And Uniloc 2017 cannot proceed as the sole plaintiff unless it has standing now, presumably derived from the purported transfer of interests in the patents-in-suit.

IDSI cites four cases for the proposition that "a successor-in-interest is only liable for the predecessor corporation's conduct, not its own independent actions." (Dkt. No. 456-1 at 5-6) (citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. Linear Films, Inc. , 718 F.Supp. 260 (D. Del. 1989); McKesson Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., No. CIVS022669 FCD KJM, 2006 WL 658100 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006); Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. 05-3165 (RBK), 2008 WL 5401604 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008); Horphag Research Ltd. v. Consac Indus., Inc. , 116 F.3d 1450, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Having carefully considered IDSI's cited authorities, the Court finds that none of them support the proposition that, after a Rule 25(c) successor-in-interest is joined, post-transaction conduct is treated separately from pre-transaction conduct.

IDSI cites four cases for the proposition that "a successor-in-interest is only liable for the predecessor corporation's conduct, not its own independent actions." (Dkt. No. 456-1 at 5-6) (citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. Linear Films, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 260 (D. Del. 1989); McKesson Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Med ., Inc., No. CIVS022669 FCD KJM, 2006 WL 658100 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006); Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. 05-3165 (RBK), 2008 WL 5401604 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008); Horphag Research Ltd. v. Consac Indus., Inc., 116 F.3d 1450, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Having carefully considered IDSI's cited authorities, the Court finds that none of them support the proposition that, after a Rule 25(c) successor-in-interest is joined, post-transaction conduct is treated separately from pre-transaction conduct.

Only a patent owner has standing to sue for patent infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 281; Mars, Inc. v. JCM American Corp., 2008 WL 5401604, *2-3 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008). Gore argues that NovaSeptum was no longer the patent owner at the time of the Consent Order because it had transferred its ownership interest in the Patent-in-Suit to Millipore in December 2006.

Although styled as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Defendants' assertion that Plaintiffs lack standing is technically an attack on this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and is properly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Mars Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. 05-3165, 2008 WL 5401604, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008) (citing Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 810 (3d Cir. 2007)). A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) Standard

Defendants' assertion that Plaintiff lacks standing is technically an attack on this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and is properly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. 05-3165, 2008 WL 5401604, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008) (citing Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806, 810 (3d Cir. 2007)). Because Defendants have raised the issue, the Court will treat it as one raised pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).