> The court found that even if all allegations in her complaint were taken to be true, they still would not establish that Warner Brothers was bound by that contract.
So it is possible that:
1) X sells rights to Y, having Y commit to obligations in exchange.
2) Z acquires Y.
3) Z now has the rights but not the obligations.
I'd guess they either don't have the rights, or don't have the obligations. If you're suing for breech of contract, you'd have to show they have the obligations; if you're suing for infridgement, you have to show they don't have the right.
So it is possible that: 1) X sells rights to Y, having Y commit to obligations in exchange. 2) Z acquires Y. 3) Z now has the rights but not the obligations.
WTF?