With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in a patent infringement suit may not cure a jurisdictional defect in standing by adding a party with standing or through retroactive assignment of the patents-in-suit. (See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 8 (quoting Schreiber Foods v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed.Cir.2005)).) It does not follow, however, that a standing defect may not be cured through substitution of the plaintiff under Rule 17(a)(3) and CHF has pointed to no case that would support such a proposition. To the contrary, courts in the Second Circuit have generally allowed for substitution when a mistake has been made as to the person entitled to bring suit and such substitution will not alter the substance of the action. See Adv. Magnetics, Inc. v. Bayfront Partners, Inc., 106 F.3d 11, 20 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Hackner v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York, 117

A: holding that where the plaintiffcorporation lacked standing to pursue its shareholders claims the district court erred in refusing to allow substitution of shareholders as plaintiffs under rule 17a3
B: holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court
C: holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders
D: holding that derivative actions do not require the support of a majority of shareholders or even all of the minority shareholders
A.