> However, Apple lost its motions for a more definite statement of Sagan's Lanham Act claim. Apple had argued that Sagan's complaint had admitted that his name

> However, Apple lost its motions for a more definite statement of Sagan's Lanham Act claim. Apple had argued that Sagan's complaint had admitted that his name was only used internally at Apple, and could not, therefore, have been "in commerce" as required by the Act. Judge Baird noted that Sagan's complaint only asserted that Apple's attorneys had stated that the name was only used internally. Finally, Judge Baird denied Apple's motion to strike Sagan's invasion of privacy count as redundant in light of the right of publicity claim. She noted that the former asserted an additional request for punitive damages, and that the other redundant elements did not prejudice the defendant in any way. INAL so hard for me to parse this, but does this mean that some elements of the lawsuit were allowed to progress?