This issue will no doubt be revisited at trial, but at this stage of the proceedings we cannot say that the district court clearly erred.

A tentative conclusion drawn during a pre-trial motion, that a decision made by a previous court may have erred, does not place that tentative conclusion "in fact".

And there you have it.

And there, you have nothing. Even if your reading of this:

The API is part of the structure, sequence and organization and user interface and therefore is potentially copyrightable.

is exactly correct, (which is obviously still open for legal debate),

there is a substantial difference between: "user interface and therefore is potentially copyrightable."

And: APIs are in fact copyrightable.

And you do not need to be a lawyer to see it.