Issue No. 001
May 1, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Netflix’s use of a 66-second funeral clip in Tiger King qualified as fair use. The panel reversed its earlier view after rehearing and affirmed the lower-court judgment for Netflix. |
| § | Timothy Sepi / Whyte Monkee Productions sued Netflix over eight video clips used in the documentary series. | | § | The case was heard in the Tenth Circuit after earlier proceedings in Oklahoma federal court. | | § | The procedural posture was an appellate ruling after rehearing. | | § | The core allegation was that Netflix used Sepi’s footage without permission or compensation. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| The ruling gives media companies and documentary producers more clarity on using short archival clips to tell a broader story. It also narrows uncertainty over how courts may apply the Supreme Court’s Warhol fair use analysis to documentary footage. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § IP · Update |
|
|
| 404 Media reported that SXSW used BrandShield, an AI-powered brand-protection service, to target alleged trademark misuse on social media. The report says Instagram removed critical posts that mentioned SXSW but did not use its logo. |
| § | SXSW, BrandShield, Vocal Texas, and Instagram are central to the report. | | § | The activity involved platform takedowns rather than a filed lawsuit. | | § | The core issue was whether trademark enforcement tools flagged critical references to SXSW. | | § | EFF attorney Cara Gagliano told 404 Media that people are allowed to use a company’s name to talk about that company. |
|
|
Why it matters
The report shows how brand-control systems can affect platform policy and online criticism. For companies, it underscores the need to review automated enforcement before takedowns reach speech that may be nominative or critical.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § IP · Update |
|
|
| A Delaware federal judge rejected Duracell’s bid to dismiss BASF’s lawsuit over lithium-ion battery technology. BASF alleges Duracell misappropriated trade secrets tied to a process for producing high-performance cathode material. |
| § | BASF filed the lawsuit against Duracell, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. | | § | The case is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. | | § | The procedural posture was denial of Duracell’s motion to dismiss. | | § | The core allegation is that Duracell misused information from a collaboration and shared it with a third party. |
|
|
Why it matters
The dispute highlights trade secret risk in commercial collaborations and supply-chain relationships. It also shows how battery technology partnerships can create financial exposure when ownership of process know-how is disputed.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
|
Not subscribed? Sign up for future editions of Marked by ESCA Legal.
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Published by ESCA Legal. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|