Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 4
  • Relationships: 5
  • Research debt items: 5

Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab

Summary

Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, No. 5:25-cv-10248 (N.D. Cal.), is a pending declaratory-judgment action filed November 26, 2025. The original complaint asks the court to hold that AI-generated “brainrot” characters claimed by Mementum Lab, including Tung Tung Tung Sahur, are not protected by U.S. copyright and that their use in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot does not infringe.

Verified Facts

  • The complaint was filed November 26, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco / San Jose division, as No. 5:25-cv-10248.12
  • Plaintiffs are Spyder Games LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, and Speedy Simulator Gaming, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company. Defendant is Mementum Lab, described as a French company.1
  • The CourtListener docket lists Judge Noel Wise as assigned, refers Magistrate Judge Susan G. Van Keulen, codes the cause as 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (trademark) and the nature of suit as 820 (copyright), and lists a last known filing of July 31, 2026.2
  • The complaint seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and a jury trial.1
  • The complaint alleges that plaintiffs own Steal a Brainrot, a Roblox game that debuted in May 2025, and that they hold U.S. Copyright Registration PA0002544969 for the game.1
  • The complaint alleges that “brainrots” in the game are inspired by humorous internet meme figures created using artificial intelligence programs, and that Mementum claims to own or control copyrights in more than a dozen such characters, including “Tung Tung Sahor” and “U Din Din Din Din Dun Ma Din Din Din Dun,” as well as “more than 50% of the entire ‘brainrot universe.’”1
  • The complaint alleges that Mementum sent a cease-and-desist letter in early 2025 claiming that TikTok creator “Noxa” created “Tung Tung Tung Sahur” and assigned rights to Mementum, later claiming also to represent creator “Breno,” and that Mementum threatened a DMCA takedown and a copyright suit unless plaintiffs paid.1
  • Plaintiffs deny that Mementum possesses valid, enforceable copyrights in the brainrots, including because, they allege, the brainrots were generated by AI without human authorship.1
  • The complaint cites Thaler v. Perlmutter and the Copyright Office’s March 2023 AI registration guidance as support for that authorship theory.134
  • Docket entries include an amended counterclaim filed by Mementum on June 5, 2026, a Mementum motion to dismiss noticed for hearing September 16, 2026, and a Spyder motion to dismiss Mementum’s first amended counterclaims also noticed for September 16, 2026.2

Historical Context

Steal a Brainrot is alleged to be a treasure-hunt game in which AI-inspired meme characters march on a red carpet and players steal them for virtual currency.1 The suit is one of the first U.S. federal cases to apply the post-Thaler human-authorship rule to viral, commercially valuable meme characters rather than to a registration application for a gallery image.

No court has yet decided whether the characters at issue are uncopyrightable AI output, a human-authored compilation or derivative, or protectable as trademarks even if copyright fails.2

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Authority level: pending district-court civil action; no merits opinion is recorded here.

The original complaint frames a binary: if the images were produced by AI that determined the expressive elements, Copyright Office guidance and Thaler say there is no copyright to enforce, so a threatened DMCA takedown would rest on a legally invalid claim.134 Thaler, however, involved an applicant who listed a machine as sole author and disclaimed human authorship; it does not automatically decide a later dispute in which a promoter alleges iterative prompting, naming, backstory, voice, or post-generation editing.3

Personal jurisdiction is pleaded under Rule 4(k)(2) on the theory that Mementum is a foreign defendant not subject to any state’s general jurisdiction and directed copyright threats and a threatened DMCA takedown at a U.S. game.1 Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (c)(3).1

Later docket activity shows the case expanded beyond the original copyright declaration: Mementum filed counterclaims and amended counterclaims, and both sides noticed motions for September 16, 2026.2 Those later pleadings should be read in full before describing trademark or European-law theories as facts.

Relationships

  • CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM cites SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.
  • CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM related_to TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.
  • CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM related_to CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.
  • CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM related_to TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.
  • CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM related_to TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.

Sources

  1. SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025).
  2. SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: CourtListener docket, No. 5:25-cv-10248.
  3. SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025).
  4. SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023: Copyright Office AI registration guidance (2023).

Research Debt

  • Add RECAP PDFs for Mementum’s counterclaims, any covenant not to sue, and the July 2026 scheduling / leave-to-amend orders.
  • Verify U.S. Copyright Registration PA0002544969 on copyright.gov.
  • Confirm the correct spelling and claimed creators of each disputed character from exhibit 1 to the complaint.
  • Record any ruling from the September 16, 2026 motion hearing when issued.
  • Avoid relying on trade-press articles as the sole source for later procedural developments.

Document metadata

  • Last verified: 2026-08-22

  1. SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT — Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff allegations except as to filing identifiers. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET — CourtListener docket for No. 5:25-cv-10248. Procedural record as of 2026-08-22. ↩↩↩↩↩

  3. SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC — Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Primary appellate authority cited in the complaint. ↩↩↩

  4. SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023 — 88 Fed. Reg. 16190. Agency guidance quoted in the complaint. ↩↩