Careers

Talent Engagement

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Through the ADventures in Law Blog, BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team provides updates and analysis on legal issues and trends in the advertising and marketing industry.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-adventuresinlawblogstaging.contentpilot.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ADventures in Law Blog</a> site for more and to subscribe!

ADventures in Law

The Antitrust Advocate blog provides insights and commentary surrounding complex antitrust litigation and trade regulation. It’s presented by members of BakerHostetler’s Antitrust and Competition Team.

Please visit our <strong><a href="https://bh-antitrustadvocatestaging.contentpilot.net/">Antitrust Advocate</a></strong> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Antitrust Advocate

BakerHostetler’s Blockchain Monitor is a weekly blog curated and written by members of our Web3 and Digital Assets team. Published every Monday, the blog is dedicated to providing our clients, friends and industry contacts with a concise weekly update of key developments in the fast-paced blockchain industry. By subscribing below you will receive the blog in your email inbox every Monday afternoon.

Please visit our <strong><a href="https://bh-theblockchainmonitorstaging.contentpilot.net/">Blockchain Monitor</a></strong> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Blockchain Monitor

Commentary addressing risks and opportunities through the life cycle of data, technology, advertising and innovation.

Please visit our <strong><a href="https://bh-bakerdatacounselstaging.contentpilot.net/">Data Counsel</a></strong> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Data Counsel

The Discovery Advocate blog is presented by members of BakerHostetler’s E-Discovery Advocacy and Management Team (EDAM).  Today’s modern discovery practice requires a practical approach backed by specialized expertise; Discovery Advocate examines the developments and trends that impact today’s litigants in the trenches of litigation and beyond.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-discoveryadvocatestaging.contentpilot.net/"><strong>Discovery Advocate</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Discovery Advocate

The Employment Law Spotlight blog is written by attorneys of our national Labor and Employment Group, with an eye toward helping employers avoid litigation.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-employmentlawspotlightstaging.contentpilot.net/"><strong>Employment Law Spotlight</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Employment Law Spotlight

BakerHostetler is at the forefront of national law firms providing clients involved in every facet of healthcare delivery across the country with comprehensive legal counsel of remarkable responsiveness, creativity, quality and value.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-healthlawupdatestaging.contentpilot.net/"><strong>Health Law Update</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Health Law Update

In today’s global economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, domain names and other intellectual property (IP) are among the most valuable assets of market leaders and rising businesses.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-ipintelligencereportstaging.contentpilot.net/"><strong>IP Intelligence Report</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

IP Intelligence Report

Updates from Capitol Hill.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-ohioclockstaging.contentpilot.net/"><strong>Ohio Clock</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Ohio Clock

The Bargaining Table blog is written by attorneys of BakerHostetler’s Labor Relations team, with an eye toward helping employers manage their unionized workforces.

Please visit our <a href="https://bh-thebargainingtableblogstaging.contentpilot.net/"><strong>Bargaining Table</strong></a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

The Bargaining Table

Home | BakerHostetler

2026 BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective

32nd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

33rd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

Join us for AD Nauseam, an AdLaw podcast series featuring Amy Mudge and Daniel Kaufman, partners from our Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team. Together, they have decades of advertising experience and share their insights on trending legal issues in the advertising space, with an emphasis on the FTC and NAD developments.

AD Nauseam

AD-ttorneys@law

The use of noncompetes is now shifting across the country. Many states are limiting the use of noncompetes. Several states have enacted or are considering prohibitions on noncompetes. Nationally, the Federal Trade Commission is engaging in a rulemaking that could ban noncompete agreements between employers and employees. What does all of this mean for your business? Are there alternatives to noncompetes that can protect your business?

To help bring all this into focus, we’ve created a three-part series called “Alternatives to Noncompetes.”

Alternatives to Noncompetes

BakerHostetler Blockchain University

BakerHosts

BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective - 2024

BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective - 2025

Celebrating Black Voices at BakerHostetler

Since the recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, companies have been impacted nationwide and have several new legal angles to consider as it relates to their employees and their businesses. With that in mind, we’ve created a new podcast series, Dobbs on Demand, designed to help you navigate this new and evolving landscape.

Dobbs on Demand

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2022

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2023

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2024

Estate and Tax Planning for Globally Mobile Clients

MDLephant: What's Big in MDL Litigation?

Promoting the Progress of Science

Rev Up!

Technology from the Top: AI, Data and the Future of Business with Today’s CIOs

The Cloakroom podcast series brings you inside Capitol Hill with insightful interviews and discussions with leading lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate. Hosted by former Congressman Peter Roskam, who leads BakerHostetler’s Federal Policy team, you’ll hear firsthand about the latest policy debates on taxes, healthcare, energy, financial services and more.
<p class="pb-4 font-bold"><strong>Subscribe to The Cloakroom</strong></p>
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam-bakerhosts/id1759425935" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apple Podcast</a> | <a href="https://www.amazon.com/music/player/podcasts/bdb139af-518d-469a-998b-ea9b49fafd93/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam---bakerhosts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon Music</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7LfpZdBC0OA2jyVjgVXNFF?si=de8f473382704494" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Spotify</a>

The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam

The Data Economy and You

The Emerging New Era for Noncompetes and Trade Secrets

The Now and Next in International Trade

The State Tax Show

Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions

Prompt visitors to take action with a button-style link.

core/button

Button


<div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions</a></div>


core/buttons

<div class="wp-block-buttons"><div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions</a></div></div>

core/heading

<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Summary</strong>&nbsp;</h2>

Two plaintiff groups filed (now-related) putative class action complaints against NVIDIA Corporation, alleging that NVIDIA infringed plaintiffs’ copyright by training their LLM, Nemo Megatron-GPT.

core/paragraph

<p>Two plaintiff groups filed (now-related) putative class action complaints against NVIDIA Corporation, alleging that NVIDIA infringed plaintiffs’ copyright by training their LLM, Nemo Megatron-GPT.</p>

<strong>What We’re Watching</strong>&nbsp;

<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>What We’re Watching</strong>&nbsp;</h2>

<p>Fact discovery closes November 2025.</p>

Case Background

Start with the basic building block of all narrative.

In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I have no desire to call to mind, there lived not long since one of those gentlemen that keep a lance in the lance-rack, an old buckler, a lean hack, and a greyhound for coursing.

Paragraph

paragraph

Paragraph that resizes to fit its container.

stretchy-paragraph

Stretchy Paragraph

<em>Abdi Nazemian et al v. NVIDIA Corporation</em>, No. 3:24-cv-01454&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p><em>Abdi Nazemian et al v. NVIDIA Corporation</em>, No. 3:24-cv-01454&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<em>Dubus, et al. v. NVIDIA,&nbsp;Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.)&nbsp;

<p><em>Dubus, et al. v. NVIDIA,&nbsp;Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.)&nbsp;</p>

<strong>Court: </strong>U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California&nbsp;

<p><strong>Court: </strong>U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California&nbsp;</p>

<strong>Judge:</strong> District Judge Jon S. Tigar&nbsp;

<p><strong>Judge:</strong> District Judge Jon S. Tigar&nbsp;</p>

Nazemian plaintiffs – Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O’Nan, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>Nazemian plaintiffs – Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O’Nan, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

Dubus plaintiffs – Andrew Dubus III &amp; Susan Orlean, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &amp; Sprengel LLP and DiCello Levitt LLP&nbsp;

<p>Dubus plaintiffs – Andrew Dubus III &amp; Susan Orlean, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &amp; Sprengel LLP and DiCello Levitt LLP&nbsp;</p>

Defendant – NVIDIA Corporation, represented by Hogan Lovells US LLP&nbsp;

<p>Defendant – NVIDIA Corporation, represented by Hogan Lovells US LLP&nbsp;</p>

contentpilot/accordion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Case Background</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><strong>Caption: </strong></p><p><em>Abdi Nazemian et al v. NVIDIA Corporation</em>, No. 3:24-cv-01454&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Dubus, et al. v. NVIDIA,&nbsp;Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.)&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Court: </strong>U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Judge:</strong> District Judge Jon S. Tigar&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Parties:</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>Nazemian plaintiffs – Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O’Nan, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Dubus plaintiffs – Andrew Dubus III &amp; Susan Orlean, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &amp; Sprengel LLP and DiCello Levitt LLP&nbsp;</p><p>Defendant – NVIDIA Corporation, represented by Hogan Lovells US LLP&nbsp;</p></div></details>

Status Updates

July 1, 2024 – Defendant answered <em>Dubus</em> complaint 

Open by default

Organize content within collapsable accordion items.

Business & Corporate

Accordion

NVIDIA filed its answer to <em>Dubus</em> plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA assered eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) noninfringement; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of scènes à faire, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) de minimis copying; (6) laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>NVIDIA filed its answer to <em>Dubus</em> plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA assered eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) noninfringement; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of scènes à faire, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) de minimis copying; (6) laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 1, 2024 – Defendant answered <em>Dubus</em> complaint </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 1, 2024 – Defendant answered <em>Dubus</em> complaint </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>NVIDIA filed its answer to <em>Dubus</em> plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA assered eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) noninfringement; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of scènes à faire, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) de minimis copying; (6) laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details>

May 29, 2024 – <em>Nazemian </em>and <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> are related 

The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to relate.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to relate.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 29, 2024 – <em>Nazemian </em>and <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> are related </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 29, 2024 – <em>Nazemian </em>and <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> are related </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to relate.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details>

May 23, 2024 – Defendant filed answer to <em>Nazemian </em>complaint

NVIDIA filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA asserts eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) NVIDIA has not infringed plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted works; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of <em>scènes à faire</em>, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) the doctrine of de minimis copying; (6) the doctrines of laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>NVIDIA filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA asserts eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) NVIDIA has not infringed plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted works; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of <em>scènes à faire</em>, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) the doctrine of de minimis copying; (6) the doctrines of laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 23, 2024 – Defendant filed answer to <em>Nazemian </em>complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 23, 2024 – Defendant filed answer to <em>Nazemian </em>complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>NVIDIA filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA asserts eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) NVIDIA has not infringed plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted works; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of <em>scènes à faire</em>, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) the doctrine of de minimis copying; (6) the doctrines of laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details>

May 23, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to relate <em>Nazemian </em>case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> 

Nazemian plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to relate their case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA, Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.), as the <em>Dubus</em> action concerns substantially the same parties, transactions, and events as the current action. The Dubus plaintiffs and NVIDIA do not oppose this motion to relate.

<p>Nazemian plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to relate their case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA, Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.), as the <em>Dubus</em> action concerns substantially the same parties, transactions, and events as the current action. The Dubus plaintiffs and NVIDIA do not oppose this motion to relate.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 23, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to relate <em>Nazemian </em>case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 23, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to relate <em>Nazemian </em>case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Nazemian plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to relate their case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA, Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.), as the <em>Dubus</em> action concerns substantially the same parties, transactions, and events as the current action. The Dubus plaintiffs and NVIDIA do not oppose this motion to relate.</p></div></details>

May 2, 2024 – Dubus<em> </em>plaintiffs filed complaint against NVIDIA 

Andre Dubus III and Susan Orlean filed a class-action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.

<p>Andre Dubus III and Susan Orlean filed a class-action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 2, 2024 – Dubus<em> </em>plaintiffs filed complaint against NVIDIA </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 2, 2024 – Dubus<em> </em>plaintiffs filed complaint against NVIDIA </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Andre Dubus III and Susan Orlean filed a class-action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.</p></div></details>

March 8, 2024 – Nazemian Plaintiffs filed class action complaint 

Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, and Stewart O’Nan filed a class action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. Plaintiffs and Class members are authors, and they own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the training dataset that NVIDIA used to train its large language model, NeMo Megatron-GPT. NVIDIA has admitted to training its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of The Pile dataset, which includes Books3. Plaintiffs alleged that because of this admission, NVIDIA “necessarily trained its [large language] models on one or more copies of the Infringed Works, thereby directly infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiffs.”&nbsp;

<p>Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, and Stewart O’Nan filed a class action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. Plaintiffs and Class members are authors, and they own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the training dataset that NVIDIA used to train its large language model, NeMo Megatron-GPT. NVIDIA has admitted to training its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of The Pile dataset, which includes Books3. Plaintiffs alleged that because of this admission, NVIDIA “necessarily trained its [large language] models on one or more copies of the Infringed Works, thereby directly infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiffs.”&nbsp;</p>

The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.&nbsp;

<p>The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.&nbsp;</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">March 8, 2024 – Nazemian Plaintiffs filed class action complaint </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content">

</div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">March 8, 2024 – Nazemian Plaintiffs filed class action complaint </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, and Stewart O’Nan filed a class action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. Plaintiffs and Class members are authors, and they own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the training dataset that NVIDIA used to train its large language model, NeMo Megatron-GPT. NVIDIA has admitted to training its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of The Pile dataset, which includes Books3. Plaintiffs alleged that because of this admission, NVIDIA “necessarily trained its [large language] models on one or more copies of the Infringed Works, thereby directly infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiffs.”&nbsp;</p><p>The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.&nbsp;</p></div></details>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Status Updates</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">July 1, 2024 – Defendant answered <em>Dubus</em> complaint </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>NVIDIA filed its answer to <em>Dubus</em> plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA assered eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) noninfringement; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of scènes à faire, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) de minimis copying; (6) laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details><details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 29, 2024 – <em>Nazemian </em>and <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> are related </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to relate.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details><details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 23, 2024 – Defendant filed answer to <em>Nazemian </em>complaint</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>NVIDIA filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, denying that it has infringed the copyrighted work asserted in this action and all other allegations. NVIDIA asserts eight affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) NVIDIA has not infringed plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted works; (3) fair use; (4) lack of copyright protectability of plaintiffs’ works under the doctrines of <em>scènes à faire</em>, merger, or under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), or such that the works are in the public domain, are facts, lack requisite originality, are unregistered, are works to which copyright protection has been abandoned, or are works to which Plaintiffs own no valid copyright; (5) the doctrine of de minimis copying; (6) the doctrines of laches, waiver, or estoppel; (7) statute of limitations; and (8) plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law such that they are barred from injunctive relief.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p></div></details><details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 23, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion to relate <em>Nazemian </em>case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA Corporation</em> </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Nazemian plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to relate their case with <em>Dubus v. NVIDIA, Inc.</em>, No. 3:24-cv-02655-VC (N.D. Cal.), as the <em>Dubus</em> action concerns substantially the same parties, transactions, and events as the current action. The Dubus plaintiffs and NVIDIA do not oppose this motion to relate.</p></div></details><details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">May 2, 2024 – Dubus<em> </em>plaintiffs filed complaint against NVIDIA </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Andre Dubus III and Susan Orlean filed a class-action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.</p></div></details><details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">March 8, 2024 – Nazemian Plaintiffs filed class action complaint </h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, and Stewart O’Nan filed a class action complaint against NVIDIA Corporation. Plaintiffs and Class members are authors, and they own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the training dataset that NVIDIA used to train its large language model, NeMo Megatron-GPT. NVIDIA has admitted to training its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of The Pile dataset, which includes Books3. Plaintiffs alleged that because of this admission, NVIDIA “necessarily trained its [large language] models on one or more copies of the Infringed Works, thereby directly infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiffs.”&nbsp;</p><p>The complaint includes a single cause of action: direct copyright infringement, based only on NVIDIA’s LLM training.&nbsp;</p></div></details></div></details>

Select Court Documents

<a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ECF-1-Complaint-NVIDIA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">March 8, 2024 – ECF 1 <em>Nazemian</em> Complaint</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ECF-1-Complaint-NVIDIA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">March 8, 2024 – ECF 1 <em>Nazemian</em> Complaint</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-1-Complaint-Dubus.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 2, 2024 – ECF 1 <em>Dubus </em>Complaint&nbsp;</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-1-Complaint-Dubus.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 2, 2024 – ECF 1 <em>Dubus </em>Complaint&nbsp;</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-37-Motion-to-Relate.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 23, 2024 – ECF 37 Motion to Relate&nbsp;</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-37-Motion-to-Relate.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 23, 2024 – ECF 37 Motion to Relate&nbsp;</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-38-Answer.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 23, 2024 – ECF 38 Answer&nbsp;to <em>Nazemian </em>Complaint</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-38-Answer.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 23, 2024 – ECF 38 Answer&nbsp;to <em>Nazemian </em>Complaint</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-47-Order-to-Relate.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 29, 2024 – ECF 47 Order to Relate</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-47-Order-to-Relate.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 29, 2024 – ECF 47 Order to Relate</a></p>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ECF-49-Answer-to-Dubus-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 1, 2024 – ECF 49 Answer to <em>Dubus</em> Complaint&nbsp;</a>

<p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ECF-49-Answer-to-Dubus-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 1, 2024 – ECF 49 Answer to <em>Dubus</em> Complaint&nbsp;</a></p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title">Select Court Documents</h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ECF-1-Complaint-NVIDIA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">March 8, 2024 – ECF 1 <em>Nazemian</em> Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-1-Complaint-Dubus.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 2, 2024 – ECF 1 <em>Dubus </em>Complaint&nbsp;</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-37-Motion-to-Relate.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 23, 2024 – ECF 37 Motion to Relate&nbsp;</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-38-Answer.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 23, 2024 – ECF 38 Answer&nbsp;to <em>Nazemian </em>Complaint</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-47-Order-to-Relate.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 29, 2024 – ECF 47 Order to Relate</a></p><p><a href="https://admin.bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ECF-49-Answer-to-Dubus-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 1, 2024 – ECF 49 Answer to <em>Dubus</em> Complaint&nbsp;</a></p></div></details>