Three was definitely a crowd in the Pennsylvania patent lawsuit Medtronic Sofamor Danek at al. v. Globus Medical Inc., No. 06-4248, E.D. Pa., when a federal judge decided on July 17 that three of the four plaintiffs in the case lacked standing for relief. The case, which involved a dispute about a stabilization technique used in spinal surgery, was brought by the company holding the patent for the technique, along with three investors in the patent who claimed to be “co-exclusive” licensees of the patent. Judge Norma L. Shapiro found that the authority cited by the plaintiffs was not binding; the term “co-exclusive licensees” has been used only once in a reported decision, and Judge Shapiro said that the case “is not binding.” However, Judge Shapiro did find that the case - Rhone-Poulenc Agro SA v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. (272 F.3d 1335, 1342 (2001)) - provided persuasive authority that standing in future cases is determined by the exclusionary rights the licensee holds, instead of the relationship between co-licensees.