Intellectual Property Law
New Matter VOLUME 50, EDITION 2, SUMMER 2025
Content
- 2025 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Contents
- Current Landscape of Cannabis Technology Patents
- Editorial Board
- EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN HARMONY AI, Crypto, and Policy Innovation
- Federal Circuit Report
- Inside This Issue
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2025-2026
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2025-2026
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The Licensing Corner
- TTAB Decisions and Developments
- What Is New for the Patent Public Advisory Committee
- Copyright Roundup
Copyright Roundup
JOHN WIERZBICKI
Law Offices of John R. Wierzbicki
WELCOME TO THE LATEST EDITION of the Copyright Roundup, in which we encapsulate developments in copyright through March, 2025. You are also invited to attend the meetings of the Copyright IG, which occur on the first Wednesday of each month, and at which these and other topics affecting copyright practice are discussed. To join the call, please contact the IG’s Chair, Marcus Peterson (marcus.peterson@oracle.com) or the Vice Chairs, Angus MacDonald (Angus.MacDonald@ucop.edu) or me, John Wierzbicki (jwierzbickilaw@gmail.com).
Lord knows I’ve paid some dues getting through1
In Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 125 F.4th 991, a toy manufacturer who holds copyright registrations for kinetic and ma-nipulable sculptures, brought a copyright action against an operator ofupscale retail stores. The defendant had also placed in its stores kinetic and manipulable sculptures, but which were larger, of a different color, and had a different finish. After the district court dismissed the complaint for the second time, plaintiff filed a notice of intent not to amend and the action was dismissed with prejudice. Held, dismissal reversed. Defendant had argued that plaintiff’s moveable sculptures cannot be the subject of a valid copyright because they are otherwise not "fixed in any tangible medium of expression," as required by 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Despite this contention, the core, copyrightable expression of works can involve motion, nor is there any authority to the contrary. Because the sculptures are material objects, they qualify as copies. They can also be perceived and reproduced in a particular form from more than a "transitory period." Therefore, their expression is fixed in a tangible medium. Plaintiff has also plausibly alleged that defendant’s sculptures are similar enough—being both made from identical connected 90-degree curved tubular segments—to satisfy an ordinary observer of their similarity. This is enough for the complaint to pass the pleading stage.