does not confer constitutional standing and “a licensee must hold some of the proprietary sticks from the bundle of patent rights” (citing Weinar v. Rollform, Inc., 744 F.2d 797, 803 (Fed.Cir.1984))). Thus, PBS Inc. did not have constitutional standing at the time it filed suit. 2. The next question is whether PBS Inc. can cure the constitutional standing defect by substituting PBS Ltd., the owner by assignment of the '651 and '039 patents, as plaintiff pursuant to Rule 17(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CHF is correct that a plaintif d 95, 98-99 (2d Cir.1941) (allowing substitution of a new plaintiff for the original plaintiffs who lacked claims within the requisite jurisdictional amount); Nat’l Maritime Union of Am. v. Curran, 87 F.Supp. 423, 425-26 (S.D.N.Y.1949) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Secs.
holding that substantive admiralty law applies though suit was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding that the court had discretion to allow substitution of plaintiffs to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements in order to give the court jurisdiction where no jurisdiction existed when the complaint was filed holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law