Earlier this week, in addition to getting married, Taylor Swift just beat a poetry copyright lawsuit brought against her by poet Kimberly Marasco. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice—but Marasco has already filed an appeal.

If nothing else, it illustrates the writer’s tenacity; she suffered an earlier legal defeat against Swift last year. Of course, the dismissal “with prejudice” means that if Marasco’s appeal doesn’t go anywhere, she will be barred from filing suit again.

The Swift songs at issue include “Guilty as Sin?,” which allegedly borrowed from Marasco’s “Devious Minds” poem, and Swift’s “My Tears Ricochet,” which Marasco claims pulled elements from her works “Scorpion,” “Beams of Light,” “Gaslight,” and “Innocence Lost.”

Marasco’s second amended complaint argued that the “striking” similarities between her poems and Swift’s lyrics are “so specific, unique, and improbable that independent creation is unlikely, supporting the inference of access.”

“Plaintiff’s claims fail at the extrinsic step for the very reasons discussed above: once the unprotectable elements are filtered out, nothing remains to compare,” wrote Judge Cannon, adding that “further amendment would be futile.”

And yet, Marasco remains undeterred, with newly filed legal documents outlining her plans to appeal the court’s decision. However, copyright suits of this nature often don’t go anywhere. The court system is well aware that certain elements across the creative spectrum are simply unprotectable by copyright law, as they remain intrinsically linked to the creation process. This includes many plot elements and literary devices prevalent across both film and song.