UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Tech Clinic

06/29/2026

Students and faculty from the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Tech Clinic were at VidCon in Anaheim, CA last week to talk about about bias and discrimination in the Creator Economy. This is part of a new IPAT Clinic initiative, the UCI Creator Autonomy Project. In addition to directly representing creators, we are hosting a convening this fall where creators, scholars, representatives, policymakers, and advocates will gather to share this expertise and experiences with the problem of bias and discrimination, and to discuss solutions to this problem. More to come!

Pictured: UCI IPAT Clinic Director Jack Lerner, IPAT student interns Elena Spackey, and Luc Edge-Dallas.

Cc University of California, Irvine School of Law

04/03/2026

Click here to learn more about this effort: https://ipat.law.uci.edu/ipat-clinic-files-amicus-curiae-brief-on-behalf-of-social-scientists-and-legal-scholars-in-drake-v-umg-appeal/

We are proud to have filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today on behalf of a group of social scientists and legal scholars led by Charis E. Kubrin, Jack Lerner, and Adam Dunbar in the legal battle between Drake and his record label UMG Recordings Inc., Drake is suing UMG for defamation over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” diss track. Drake wants the court to consider every “Not Like Us” lyric as literal and in the abstract, outside the context of the rap battle.

We argue that what Drake is doing is dangerous. He is asking the court to ignore the rich history of rap music and generations of oral tradition in the Black community, and flatten the lyrics into literal confessions or statements of intent. Worse, he asks the court to disregard the real risk of racial bias that rap lyrics introduce. Three decades of empirical research shows that when rap lyrics are introduced as evidence, it injects racial prejudice into legal proceedings.

In trying to win this legal battle, Drake is undermining the free speech rights of rappers and inviting racial bias into the courtroom. We hope our amicus brief helps the court understand the history and context of rap music—and the immense consequences of treating “Not Like Us” as literal.

A massive thank you to our IPAT Clinic Director Jack I. Lerner; lead author Charis E. Kubrin, Adam Dunbar, and Kyle Winnen; and the brilliant scholars Lakeyta Bonnette, Regina N. Bradley, Jabari Evans, Murray Forman, Antoine Hardy, Anthony Kwame Harrison, Corey J. Miles, Erik Nielson, Lucius T. Outlaw III, and Bryon D. Turman for joining this effort and lending their expertise and passion.

Finally, thank you to UCI clinic staff Debi Gloria and Czarina Ellingson, and our 2025-2026 clinic students Katrina Shelton, Stephanie Yanes, Jana Ariss, James Blitz, Shannon Barbour, and Athina Rosure, who contributed to this effort.

Link in comments!

CC University of California, Irvine University of California, Irvine School of Law

04/03/2026

We are proud to have filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today on behalf of a group of social scientists and legal scholars led by Charis E. Kubrin, Jack Lerner, and Adam Dunbar in the legal battle between Drake and his record label UMG Recordings Inc., Drake is suing UMG for defamation over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” diss track. Drake wants the court to consider every “Not Like Us” lyric as literal and in the abstract, outside the context of the rap battle.

We argue that what Drake is doing is dangerous. He is asking the court to ignore the rich history of rap music and generations of oral tradition in the Black community, and flatten the lyrics into literal confessions or statements of intent. Worse, he asks the court to disregard the real risk of racial bias that rap lyrics introduce. Three decades of empirical research shows that when rap lyrics are introduced as evidence, it injects racial prejudice into legal proceedings.

In trying to win this legal battle, Drake is undermining the free speech rights of rappers and inviting racial bias into the courtroom. We hope our amicus brief helps the court understand the history and context of rap music—and the immense consequences of treating “Not Like Us” as literal.

A massive thank you to our IPAT Clinic Director Jack I. Lerner; lead author Charis E. Kubrin, Adam Dunbar, and Kyle Winnen; and the brilliant scholars Lakeyta Bonnette, Regina N. Bradley, Jabari Evans, Murray Forman, Antoine Hardy, Anthony Kwame Harrison, Corey J. Miles, Erik Nielson, Lucius T. Outlaw III, and Bryon D. Turman for joining this effort and lending their expertise and passion.

Finally, thank you to UCI clinic staff Debi Gloria and Czarina Ellingson, and our 2025-2026 clinic students Katrina Shelton, Stephanie Yanes, Jana Ariss, James Blitz, Shannon Barbour, and Athina Rosure, who contributed to this effort.

Link in comments!

CC University of California, Irvine University of California, Irvine School of Law

03/12/2026

SUPREME COURT OF KOREA PERMITS REUSE AND “REFORM” OF TRADEMARKED GOODS, AGREEING WITH IPAT CLINIC-AUTHORED AMICUS BRIEF

Back in 2024, the IPAT Clinic had the opportunity to bring our IP expertise to bear in an important case in the Republic of Korea to help Korea’s Intellectual Property High Court decide an important consumer rights case. The case involved whether consumers could bring their own goods like handbags and wallets to small third-party repair businesses to modify or repurpose thier goods when they became damaged or worn out. Louis Vuitton didn’t like this, and sued. Together with the brilliant Rebecca Tushnet and led by Kyung Sin Park, we wrote an amicus brief on behalf of a group of intellectual property law professors arguing that United States trademark law permits this and doing our best to help the court understand how U.S. law treats this kind of activity more generally. Last month, the Supreme Court of Korea agreed with our position, and ruled in favor of the tiny repair shop in Seoul that stood up to Louis Vuitton!

This was a wonderful opportunity for our students to see in real time how influential our law can be in *other countries,* and to help courts understand U.S. IP law. Special thanks to UCI Law alumnae Ji Seo, Ashley Huston, and Erica Lee for their excellent work on this matter!

In the comments:

Professor KS Park’s LinkedIn post on the Korean Supreme Court victory.

The IPAT Clinic’s amicus brief filed with the Intellectual Property High Court.

The Supreme Court of Korea’s February 26, 2026 decision. (In Korean)