 The partnership did not claim that "it" owned the design's copyright, only that the Foundation did "not".Since, according to the court, the Foundation promised not to sue the partnership for any "potentially copyright-infringing uses of the Banana Design", the partnership could continue using the design and there would be no legal action that the Foundation could take (under "copyright" law) to stop it.And if, the court concluded, the partnership could continue with business as usual (as far as "copyright" was concerned) regardless of whether the Foundation actually owned the design's copyright, a court decision would have no practical consequences for the partnership; it would be a purely academic (or "advisory") opinion, which federal courts may not issue.