It’s not my area of expertise, but a couple of points:
The SF Court seemes to have ruled on the main issue, and did not dismiss the case based on lack of standing. So, the ‘standing issue’ part of the decision would be appear to be dicta.
Not only is dicta not binding, but the SF court’s decision is not binding on the Philly court.
Of course, it may be that the judge’s dicta was correct, in which case lack of standing may be grounds to dismiss Berg’s suit if the legal reasoning is sound, and the applicable law specifies that only the opponent may file such a suit.
Thanks!