#IntellectualProperty

Can Torpedo Bats Be Patented?

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Tim Eiden on Pexels.com

By: Evan Stewart

Introduction of Torpedo Bats 

On March 29th, the New Yankees beat the Milwaukee Brewers 20-9, hitting a franchise record nine home runs, including three home runs on the first three pitches of the game. However, the story that took the baseball world by storm was not the franchise’s single-game home-run record, or the three-game sweep in which the Yankees hit 15 home runs and scored 36 runs. Instead, the national spotlight was on the new bowling-pin shaped bats that several of the Yankees players were using. These bats, dubbed “torpedo bats” have dominated baseball news for the first two weeks of the season, and are likely to impact the intellectual property world as well.

What Are Torpedo Bats

Torpedo bats differ from regular bats because the part of the bat with the widest diameter is lower on the bat. The lower sweet spot is meant to distribute the most mass of the bat to the “sweet spot”. The rationale for this change was very simple: put more wood in the area where the ball usually hits the bat. In the words of MIT physicist Dr. David Pritchard, “When you look at the design of a classic baseball bat, the physics just don’t add up. When the ball comes in and hits the sweet spot, it bends the bat so some of the energy goes into bending the bat.” With more wood in the sweet spot, there will be less energy lost by the bat bending back.

Who Created the Torpedo Bat

Credit for the creation of the torpedo bat goes to another MIT physicist turned baseball coach, Aaron Leanhardt. Leanhardt is currently a field coordinator for the Miami Marlins but previously worked as a Minor League hitting coordinator for the Yankees. Before beginning his career as a coach, Leanhardt earned a PhD in physics from MIT and was a physics professor at the University of Michigan. 

Leanhardt first began designing and testing the torpedo bat while working for the Yankees. In 2024, he first introduced the torpedo bat design to some Yankees players, including star hitter Giancarlo Stanton. There are even pictures of Stanton using a torpedo bat in the 2024 World Series. However, it was not until the opening weekend of the 2025 season, following the Yankees 3-game drubbing of the Milwaukee Brewers, when social media caught wind of the torpedo bats, and their popularity began to soar.

In the two weeks following the introduction of torpedo bats to the mainstream, baseball bat companies received thousands of preorders for torpedo bats. Two notable bat companies, Marucci and Victus, had models of the bats on their websites within a few days, trying to capitalize on the newest trend and had record sales. 

The requests for torpedo bats are also coming from MLB teams themselves. Hillerich & Bradsby, the company that is credited for creating the Yankees’ torpedo bats, received an influx of orders from MLB teams directly asking for torpedo bat models. Within a few days, there were MLB players across the league using torpedo bats, and it will be interesting to see if their popularity continues to grow among players.

Can Torpedo Bats Be Patented

Whenever there is a popular new invention, one of the first questions is whether it is eligible to receive patent protection. Patents offer inventors “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” their invention in the United States. The two main types of patents available to inventors are utility patents and design patents. Utility patents are granted to inventors of new and useful processes or machines. Design patents are granted to inventors of new, original, and ornamental designs for an article of manufacturing. 

Although the general shape of baseball bats has stayed nearly the same for over 100 years, there have been some modifications that have received patents. The first, and goofiest, example of these was the banana bat. Banana bats, which had a curved barrel, received a patent in 1890, despite not catching on in professional baseball (for obvious reasons).

A modern example of a bat modification that received a patent is the “axe handle” bat. Axe bats, which grew in popularity around 2015, featured a bat handle that resembled an axe handle instead of the rounded handle that is usually used on a baseball bat. Axe bats received a design patent in 2013, as an ornamental change to the traditional baseball bat. Today, “axe bats” are sold exclusively by Baden Sports, but the company does license the axe handle design to other bat companies.

Based on the axe bat precedent, it seems like torpedo bats could eventually receive a design patent. Interestingly, Bob Hillercih, the vice president of the aforementioned bat manufacturer Hillerich & Bradley, does not believe that torpedo bats are eligible for a patent because the changed design for the bat is just a change in the shape. 

However, based on the description of design patents, this does not seem to be true. 

There are two factors in determining whether a design qualifies for a design patent. First, the design must be an integral aspect of the product that cannot be separated. The difference in barrel placement is the integral aspect of the design of torpedo bat, so it appears that this element would be met. Next, the design must have no bearing on the item’s functionality. The torpedo bat design would likely meet this element, because the new design does not alter the  baseball bat’s functionality. Rather, the torpedo bat just changes the amount of wood at the point of contact. Although some Yankee players had early success with the torpedo bats, it does not, on its own, make it easier to hit home runs. Torpedo bats are used just like regular baseball bats, the only difference is that it has a unique ornamentation with the location of the largest part of the ball being moved. 

Design patents also require that the new patent not be obviously derived or resembling other designs. While there may be an argument that the torpedo bat resembles other bats, the same argument could have been used for the axe bat handle resembling a baseball bat handle or an axe handle. When viewing all of these elements, and comparing torpedo bats to the patent that the axe handle received, there is a possibility that torpedo bats could receive a design patent, if Leanhardt chooses to do so. 

Conclusion

Time will tell if torpedo bats are the next big thing in baseball, or if they are just another banana bat. While more players have begun using them, other players tried them but returned to their old bats or refused to use them altogether. Regardless of their long-term impact on baseball, it will be very interesting to track whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office determines that torpedo bats can be patented. While historical precedent makes it seem like torpedo design can be patented, there seem to be concerns from people in the bat manufacturing business, who also may not want the bat design to be patented so they do not have to license the design to use it. 

Copyright Law (Taylor’s Version)

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Barthy Bonhomme on Pexels.com

By: Melissa Torres

Are you ready for it? Taylor Swift is reportedly set to kick off 2023 with the release of a new album, Speak Now (Taylor’s Version). Despite just releasing the fastest-selling album of 2022, Midnights, fans have been speculating about which one of her early albums she’ll rerecord next for quite awhile. Reports state, “Taylor has quietly been in the studio working on remaking both Speak Now and 1989. All details are still being ironed out but Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) should be out within the next couple of months, before she kicks off her Eras world tour.” 

But why is Taylor Swift rerecording old albums?  

While it may seem obvious to the general public that the writer, composer, and performer of a song would then own the recording of the song, the music industry functions on a different set of rules formed by contracts and copyrights. When a new artist signs with a record label, they form a contract which specifies the intellectual property rights of the works created. 

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. Common types of work include photographs, illustrations, books, and music. These works are fixed when they are captured in a “sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time.” U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with a list of exclusive rights and also provides owners of copyright the right to authorize others to exercise these exclusive rights, subject to certain statutory limitations. 

Typically, in the music industry, copyrights are divided between the musical composition of a song and its sound recording. The musical composition refers to the lyrics of a song, the music itself, or both. The sound recording, also known as the master, is the recorded performance of the song. As a result, more often than not, an artist’s record label owns the master of a song.  

In Swift’s case, she signed with record label Big Machine Records in 2005 and formed a contract in which one of the stipulations was that Big Machine would own the rights to the sound records in perpetuity. After the deal ended in 2018, Swift moved on and signed to a different label. Her recordings made over the 13 years stayed with Big Machine, and the label sold the rights to them for $300 million to Scooter Bruan in 2019. Swift alleges she was never given the opportunity to purchase these rights. Despite writing and performing over 82 songs, she has no rights to those records and receives no payment anytime they are played. Therefore, the singer embarked on a mission to rerecord her first six records in order to own both the musical composition and master of the new recordings. 

Because Swift has written every single song released in those six albums and therefore owns the musical composition copyright, she retains the “sync rights” of her music. A synchronization license is needed for a song to be reproduced onto a television program, film, video, commercial, radio, or even a phone message. Permission from the owner of the master use license, typically the record company, also needs to be obtained if a specific recorded version of a composition is used for such a purpose. As a result, everytime these songs are used for commercial purposes, the owner of the masters earns a profit. 

By rerecording versions of her old hits, Swift will now hold the master and composition rights of these songs. To be clear, the original masters of these songs still exist, but by encouraging fans to stream the newer recorded version, Swift is able to reclaim any income that may have gone toward songs previously owned by her former label. 

What can we learn from Swift?

Swift’s case provides several important lessons to creators about the importance of intellectual property rights. Situations such as these, while not usually on the same scale, are relatively common in the entertainment industry. Prince, Kesha, and The Beatles are just some of the many artists who have fought for ownership rights of their music.  Artists need to be careful when entering contracts in order to protect their intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is valuable, and it is crucial artists recognize the significance of protecting their rights. Without intellectual property protection, artists would not be fully compensated for their creations. As a result, artists’ desire to produce new work would decline and cultural innovation would suffer. Moreover, creators should never rush to sign a contract before consulting a legal professional and fully understanding the future implications of each clause, as they can have enormous ramifications. The document that Swift signed in 2005 is still affecting not only her life, but the music industry today. Despite the legal hurdles Swift has dealt with, she is ultimately able to survive and profit off recreating her old music. Swift’s strong fan base has rallied behind her by promoting her rerecorded music and has helped her continue a career as one of the most successful female artists of the decade. 

Major Tuddy’s Major Trademark Issue

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

By: Kelton McLeod

On January 1st, 2023, the Washington Commanders unveiled a new mascot, Major Tuddy, a tall humanoid hog, wearing a military-inspired helmet and a perpetual grin. The unveiling has gone over with a healthy mix of derision and confusion, just about as well as anything one would expect to come from the Dan Snyder-owned Commanders. While even casual football fans might understand that Major Tuddy is named after the slang term for a touchdown, some are confused why the Washington, D.C.-based football team would want a hog to be the new symbol of their organization, while others are filing a trademark lawsuit because of it. 

From the 1980s and into the 1990s, Washington had the best offensive line in all of professional football. These men, including the likes of Joe Jacoby and Mark May, were known as The Hogs. The Hogs were, and remain, an important piece of Washington’s history, helping the team win its only three Super Bowls. But despite bursting onto the scene through a sign emblazoned with “Let’s Get Hog Wild,” Major Tuddy has not had many fans, players, or former players very excited. 

Instead of being a triumph at the end of a lackluster season (the Commanders were eliminated from playoff contention the day Major Tuddy was revealed), Major Tuddy has proved to be yet another point of controversy for the Commanders Organization. In fact, some of the original Hogs, including the likes of Joe Jacoby and Mark May, are so unenthused with the new mascot that they issued a statement prior to Major Tuddy’s announcement distancing themselves from Dan Snyder (the Commanders current majority owner) and referencing potential legal action related to this new Hog. The members of the original Hogs (joined by John Riggins, Fred Dean, and Doc Walker) created O-Line Entertainment, LLC,  and in July of 2022, O-Line Entertainment filed trademark applications to the federal register for ‘Hogs’ and ‘Original Hogs,’ as the terms relate to professional football paraphernalia and merchandise. O-Line Entertainment sees Major Tuddy as a potential infringement on their mark, an outright attempt to capitalize and commercialize on the work of the Hogs of the 80s and 90s, and an attempt to confuse the fans. 

While the Commanders imply they have no intention to financially capitalize on Hogs as a mark, O-Line Entertainment has a real shot at being able to exclude the Commanders from even trying. The Lanham Act §43(a) creates a statutory cause of action for trademark infringement, where “any person who . . .uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, . . . likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person . . . shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by such act.” Trademarks exist to help consumers identify the source of a good. So, if someone attempts to use another’s mark, or something substantially similar, to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of a good, that party is liable for trademark infringement. In this case, it is hard to refute the source of Major Tuddy’s swine heritage, as even his official team profile references the offensive line from the 80s and 90s. O-Line Entertainment would just need to prove that the likelihood of confusion exists between their products and those of the Commanders organization, not that actual confusion has occurred. Under current law, there is a prospect of O-line Entertainment doing so.

While O-Line Entertainment’s trademark registration has yet to be granted, and the Commanders organization could attempt to invalidate it, this likely would not be worth the problems it would cause. The Commanders are already in the midst of a Congressional investigation, and Dan Snyder’s time as owner might not be able to handle the bad press. While it is hard to expect Dan Snyder and the Commanders leadership team–a group known for trying and failing to hide behind the best parts of their team’s legacy–to handle themselves in a morally upstanding way, how they choose to handle the marketing and merchandising of their new mascot could mean another long and protracted trademark dispute where they lack the moral high ground.  

3D Printing in Intellectual Property

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
2017 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge (NHQ201708240003) by NASA HQ PHOTO is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

By: Yixin Bao

Starting in the 1980s, 3D printing or additive manufacturing arose and began to develop. Although the standard limitations that exist in current Intellectual Property (“IP”) law can be applied to 3D printing, there are still gaps in the legal profession that the courts need to address.

What is 3D printing? 

3D printing produces 3-dimensional physical objects from digital templates through a variety of processes. This is normally done under computer control, with materials added together, such as plastic, metal, and others, typically layer by layer. As of 2020, after around 40 years of its initial development, 3D printing has become a more mature technique. 3D printers are now more affordable allowing the public to use 3D printing techniques in normal life. Consumers can easily find a low-cost 3D printer as cheap as a few hundred dollars. 

3D Printing and IP Law

Today, there are more prosecutions and litigation over the use of intellectual property protection measures in the context of 3D printing. For example, Patent and Litigation Trends for 3D Printing Technologies published on IPLytics Platform found that the patent applications related to 3D printing continue to rise in the passing years, from around 2,000 in 2007 to over 20,000 in 2019. The good news is that the standard limitations that exist in current IP law can also be applied to 3D printing. 

Patent protection, for example, plays a significant role. In the U.S., patents are a government-granted monopoly towards the inventor for a limited period of 20 years. As WIPO’s 2015 World Intellectual Property Report on Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth has shown, 3D printing companies are enforcing patents heavily. These include not only specialist 3D printing companies but also major manufacturing companies, such as GE and Siemens. One of the reasons why patent protection is an important strategy over 3D printing is that such protection covers a wide variety of objects, including printers, the components of such printers, the manufacturing processes, and the products. In addition, the industrial 3D printing sector does not solely rely on patent law in its protection strategy. Trade secrets, copyright, and trademark protections also play a role.

However, there are also questions that courts need to address when it comes to the 3D printing technique. Compared to the industrial sector where the protection is similar to the other manufacturing industries, 3D printing for non-commercial purposes seems to face several new challenges. One question raised by Elsa Malaty and Guilda Rostama published in World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Magazine is who would own an object when it is conceived by one individual, digitally modeled by another, and printed by a third individual. 

Why does it matter?  

With the quality of 3D printing continuing to rise and the price continuing to drop, 3D printing is now more advanced and accessible, so it can be foreseen that 3D printing-related legal protections and disputes will only increase in the future. The challenges and opportunities will come after the earliest patents start to expire. The original owners would need to develop new patentable technologies to maintain those protections. The expiration will also present an opportunity for the Open Source Community.

IP law contributes enormously to national economies. Dozens of industries, including 3D printing, rely on the adequate enforcement of IP. On the other hand, consumers benefit from IP to ensure the quality of the products, such as 3D printers. This is especially important because the availability of low-cost, high-performance 3D printers has put the technology within reach of consumers. 

At the same time, IP-related issues are only one legal aspect that 3D printing raises. During the use and application of this technique, other aspects of law will undoubtedly be implicated and will need to be resolved eventually.