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></h2>

Three plaintiff groups, fiction and nonfiction authors, each filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violations and torts related to OpenAI’s GPT models and ChatGPT service. These cases — <em>Tremblay v. OpenAI</em>, <em>Silverman v. OpenAI</em>, and <em>Chabon v. OpenAI</em> — are now consolidated here.

core/paragraph

<p>Three plaintiff groups, fiction and nonfiction authors, each filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violations and torts related to OpenAI’s GPT models and ChatGPT service. These cases — <em>Tremblay v. OpenAI</em>, <em>Silverman v. OpenAI</em>, and <em>Chabon v. OpenAI</em> — are now consolidated here.</p>

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

Close of fact discovery is April 28, 2025, and close of expert discovery is September 11, 2025.

<p>Close of fact discovery is April 28, 2025, and close of expert discovery is September 11, 2025.</p>

<strong>Case Background</strong>

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>In re: OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation</em>, Master File No. 3:23-cv-3223

<p><em>In re: OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation</em>, Master File No. 3:23-cv-3223</p>

<em>Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-03223

<p><em>Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-03223</p>

<em>Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-03416

<p><em>Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-03416</p>

<em>Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-04625

<p><em>Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-04625</p>

<strong>Court:</strong> Northern District of California

<p><strong>Court:</strong> Northern District of California</p>

<strong>Judge: </strong>District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin

<p><strong>Judge: </strong>District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin</p>

Plaintiffs – Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick; Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Junot Díaz, Andrew Sean Greer, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Laura Lippman, Rachel Louise Snyder, Ayelet Waldman, and Jacqueline Woodson on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Ventura Hersey &amp; Muller, LLP and Caferty Clobes Meriwether &amp; Sprengel LLP

<p>Plaintiffs – Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick; Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Junot Díaz, Andrew Sean Greer, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Laura Lippman, Rachel Louise Snyder, Ayelet Waldman, and Jacqueline Woodson on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Ventura Hersey &amp; Muller, LLP and Caferty Clobes Meriwether &amp; Sprengel LLP</p>

“OpenAI” – OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI, L.P.; OpenAI OpCo, L.L.C; OpenAI GP, L.L.C.; OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C.; OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P.; and OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, represented by Morrison &amp; Foerster LLP and Latham &amp; Watkins LLP

<p>“OpenAI” – OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI, L.P.; OpenAI OpCo, L.L.C; OpenAI GP, L.L.C.; OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C.; OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P.; and OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, represented by Morrison &amp; Foerster LLP and Latham &amp; Watkins LLP</p>

<p>Former parties: Plaintiff Mona Awad</p>

contentpilot/accordion

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Case Background</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p><strong>Captions:</strong></p><p><em>In re: OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation</em>, Master File No. 3:23-cv-3223</p><p><em>Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-03223</p><p><em>Silverman v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-03416</p><p><em>Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc.</em>, No. 3:23-cv-04625</p><p><strong>Court:</strong> Northern District of California</p><p><strong>Judge: </strong>District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin</p><p><strong>Parties:</strong></p><p>Plaintiffs – Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick; Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Junot Díaz, Andrew Sean Greer, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Laura Lippman, Rachel Louise Snyder, Ayelet Waldman, and Jacqueline Woodson on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Ventura Hersey &amp; Muller, LLP and Caferty Clobes Meriwether &amp; Sprengel LLP</p><p>“OpenAI” – OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI, L.P.; OpenAI OpCo, L.L.C; OpenAI GP, L.L.C.; OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C.; OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P.; and OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC, represented by Morrison &amp; Foerster LLP and Latham &amp; Watkins LLP</p><p>Former parties: Plaintiff Mona Awad</p></div></details>

<strong>Status Updates</strong>

<strong>Sept. 3, 2024 – Settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2024, is vacated</strong>

Open by default

Organize content within collapsable accordion items.

Business & Corporate

Accordion

The court vacated the settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2024.&nbsp;

<p>The court vacated the settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2024.&nbsp;</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Sept. 3, 2024 – Settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2024, is vacated</strong></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"><strong>Sept. 3, 2024 – Settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2024, is vacated</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The court vacated the settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2024.&nbsp;</p></div></details>

<strong>July 30, 2024 – Court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss Count II (Unfair Competition Law claim) of the consolidated amended complaint </strong>

The court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Unfair Competition Law claim (Count II) with prejudice.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>The court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Unfair Competition Law claim (Count II) with prejudice.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to respond to defendants’ arguments about the “unlawful” or “fraudulent” prongs and thus conceded those theories. In response to plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ motion was procedurally improper under Rule 12(g), the Court held that Rule 12(g) does not bar consideration of defendants’ preemption argument, and that the Copyright Act preempted the claim at issue because it fell within the subject matter and was qualitatively the same as the direct copyright infringement claim. It explained, “The basis of both claims is the unauthorized copying and use of the Infringed Works to train ChatGPT,” so “[e]ven though the elements of the UCL claim are not identical to the copyright claim, ‘the underlying nature’ of Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is ‘part and parcel of [the] copyright claim.’”

<p>The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to respond to defendants’ arguments about the “unlawful” or “fraudulent” prongs and thus conceded those theories. In response to plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ motion was procedurally improper under Rule 12(g), the Court held that Rule 12(g) does not bar consideration of defendants’ preemption argument, and that the Copyright Act preempted the claim at issue because it fell within the subject matter and was qualitatively the same as the direct copyright infringement claim. It explained, “The basis of both claims is the unauthorized copying and use of the Infringed Works to train ChatGPT,” so “[e]ven though the elements of the UCL claim are not identical to the copyright claim, ‘the underlying nature’ of Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is ‘part and parcel of [the] copyright claim.’”</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>July 30, 2024 – Court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss Count II (Unfair Competition Law claim) of the consolidated amended complaint </strong></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"><strong>July 30, 2024 – Court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss Count II (Unfair Competition Law claim) of the consolidated amended complaint </strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The court granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Unfair Competition Law claim (Count II) with prejudice.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to respond to defendants’ arguments about the “unlawful” or “fraudulent” prongs and thus conceded those theories. In response to plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ motion was procedurally improper under Rule 12(g), the Court held that Rule 12(g) does not bar consideration of defendants’ preemption argument, and that the Copyright Act preempted the claim at issue because it fell within the subject matter and was qualitatively the same as the direct copyright infringement claim. It explained, “The basis of both claims is the unauthorized copying and use of the Infringed Works to train ChatGPT,” so “[e]ven though the elements of the UCL claim are not identical to the copyright claim, ‘the underlying nature’ of Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is ‘part and parcel of [the] copyright claim.’”</p></div></details>

<strong>July 12, 2024 – OpenAI filed statement of recent decision</strong>

OpenAI filed a statement of recent decision to inform the court of a recent ruling in <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/the-copilot-litigation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Doe v. GitHub, Inc.</a>, which it argued was relevant to its pending motion to dismiss. OpenAI pointed out that the court held that F.R.C.P. Rule 12(g)(2) did not foreclose OpenAI’s arguments that plaintiffs failed to state a breach of contract claim. In <em>Doe</em>, the N.D. California Court concluded that “[d]enying late-filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions . . . can produce unnecessary and costly delays, contrary to the direction of Rule 1” and thus “consider[ed] OpenAI’s arguments” in order to “materially expedite[] the district court’s disposition of the case.” Dkt. 253, at 7<em>.</em>

<p>OpenAI filed a statement of recent decision to inform the court of a recent ruling in <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/the-copilot-litigation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Doe v. GitHub, Inc.</a>, which it argued was relevant to its pending motion to dismiss. OpenAI pointed out that the court held that F.R.C.P. Rule 12(g)(2) did not foreclose OpenAI’s arguments that plaintiffs failed to state a breach of contract claim. In <em>Doe</em>, the N.D. California Court concluded that “[d]enying late-filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions . . . can produce unnecessary and costly delays, contrary to the direction of Rule 1” and thus “consider[ed] OpenAI’s arguments” in order to “materially expedite[] the district court’s disposition of the case.” Dkt. 253, at 7<em>.</em></p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>July 12, 2024 – OpenAI filed statement of recent decision</strong></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"><strong>July 12, 2024 – OpenAI filed statement of recent decision</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>OpenAI filed a statement of recent decision to inform the court of a recent ruling in <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/the-copilot-litigation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Doe v. GitHub, Inc.</a>, which it argued was relevant to its pending motion to dismiss. OpenAI pointed out that the court held that F.R.C.P. Rule 12(g)(2) did not foreclose OpenAI’s arguments that plaintiffs failed to state a breach of contract claim. In <em>Doe</em>, the N.D. California Court concluded that “[d]enying late-filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions . . . can produce unnecessary and costly delays, contrary to the direction of Rule 1” and thus “consider[ed] OpenAI’s arguments” in order to “materially expedite[] the district court’s disposition of the case.” Dkt. 253, at 7<em>.</em></p></div></details>

<strong>Apr. 17, 2024 – OpenAI replied to their motion to dismiss </strong>

OpenAI filed a [127] reply in support of their [122] motion to dismiss, responding to arguments in plaintiffs’ [126] opposition. OpenAI argued defendants had no reason to raise preemption earlier in the case and Rule 12(g) does not preclude considering OpenAI’s preemption defense. OpenAI maintained that plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claim is preempted and argued that the court’s dismissal should be with prejudice.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>OpenAI filed a [127] reply in support of their [122] motion to dismiss, responding to arguments in plaintiffs’ [126] opposition. OpenAI argued defendants had no reason to raise preemption earlier in the case and Rule 12(g) does not preclude considering OpenAI’s preemption defense. OpenAI maintained that plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claim is preempted and argued that the court’s dismissal should be with prejudice.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

OpenAI argued that the court expressly noted an unfair competition claim may be preempted by the Copyright Act, and plaintiffs failed to provide any legitimate argument against preemption to prove otherwise. Additionally, in response to plaintiffs’ argument that OpenAI should have raised the defense sooner, OpenAI claimed that plaintiffs amended their complaint to raise a new claim under the unfair competition law’s “unfair business practices” prong, which prompted this motion to dismiss. There was no argument for preemption prior.

<p>OpenAI argued that the court expressly noted an unfair competition claim may be preempted by the Copyright Act, and plaintiffs failed to provide any legitimate argument against preemption to prove otherwise. Additionally, in response to plaintiffs’ argument that OpenAI should have raised the defense sooner, OpenAI claimed that plaintiffs amended their complaint to raise a new claim under the unfair competition law’s “unfair business practices” prong, which prompted this motion to dismiss. There was no argument for preemption prior.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Apr. 17, 2024 – OpenAI replied to their motion to dismiss </strong></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"><strong>Apr. 17, 2024 – OpenAI replied to their motion to dismiss </strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>OpenAI filed a [127] reply in support of their [122] motion to dismiss, responding to arguments in plaintiffs’ [126] opposition. OpenAI argued defendants had no reason to raise preemption earlier in the case and Rule 12(g) does not preclude considering OpenAI’s preemption defense. OpenAI maintained that plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claim is preempted and argued that the court’s dismissal should be with prejudice.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>OpenAI argued that the court expressly noted an unfair competition claim may be preempted by the Copyright Act, and plaintiffs failed to provide any legitimate argument against preemption to prove otherwise. Additionally, in response to plaintiffs’ argument that OpenAI should have raised the defense sooner, OpenAI claimed that plaintiffs amended their complaint to raise a new claim under the unfair competition law’s “unfair business practices” prong, which prompted this motion to dismiss. There was no argument for preemption prior.</p></div></details>

<strong><strong>Apr. 10, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss </strong></strong>

Plaintiffs filed a [126] response to [122] OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, arguing that the Copyright Act does not preempt plaintiffs’ California unfair competition law claim because that claim is based on theories of unfair competition that do not fall under the subject matter of the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs argued their claim does not stem solely from defendants’ use of their copyrighted works to train and create generative AI models, but that their claim stems from the models’ distortion of the marketplace in which “creators of written work” generally compete. Plaintiffs classified California’s unfair competition laws to reflect the legislature’s intent to eliminate unfair advantages in the marketplace that are detrimental to both consumers and law-abiding competitors, such that the law would protect against OpenAI’s use of the copyrighted work.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>Plaintiffs filed a [126] response to [122] OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, arguing that the Copyright Act does not preempt plaintiffs’ California unfair competition law claim because that claim is based on theories of unfair competition that do not fall under the subject matter of the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs argued their claim does not stem solely from defendants’ use of their copyrighted works to train and create generative AI models, but that their claim stems from the models’ distortion of the marketplace in which “creators of written work” generally compete. Plaintiffs classified California’s unfair competition laws to reflect the legislature’s intent to eliminate unfair advantages in the marketplace that are detrimental to both consumers and law-abiding competitors, such that the law would protect against OpenAI’s use of the copyrighted work.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

Plaintiffs also argued that under F.R.C.P. 12(g)(2), defendants missed their opportunity to raise their preemption argument, arguing defendants “could have raised” their preemption argument when they challenged the initial complaint, and the court should not permit defendants to raise this new objection.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>Plaintiffs also argued that under F.R.C.P. 12(g)(2), defendants missed their opportunity to raise their preemption argument, arguing defendants “could have raised” their preemption argument when they challenged the initial complaint, and the court should not permit defendants to raise this new objection.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

Plaintiffs asked the court to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively, grant plaintiffs leave to amend in response to defendants’ new argument.

<p>Plaintiffs asked the court to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively, grant plaintiffs leave to amend in response to defendants’ new argument.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong><strong>Apr. 10, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss </strong></strong></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"><strong><strong>Apr. 10, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss </strong></strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs filed a [126] response to [122] OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, arguing that the Copyright Act does not preempt plaintiffs’ California unfair competition law claim because that claim is based on theories of unfair competition that do not fall under the subject matter of the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs argued their claim does not stem solely from defendants’ use of their copyrighted works to train and create generative AI models, but that their claim stems from the models’ distortion of the marketplace in which “creators of written work” generally compete. Plaintiffs classified California’s unfair competition laws to reflect the legislature’s intent to eliminate unfair advantages in the marketplace that are detrimental to both consumers and law-abiding competitors, such that the law would protect against OpenAI’s use of the copyrighted work.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Plaintiffs also argued that under F.R.C.P. 12(g)(2), defendants missed their opportunity to raise their preemption argument, arguing defendants “could have raised” their preemption argument when they challenged the initial complaint, and the court should not permit defendants to raise this new objection.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Plaintiffs asked the court to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively, grant plaintiffs leave to amend in response to defendants’ new argument.</p></div></details>

<strong><strong>Mar. 27, 2024 – OpenAI filed motion to dismiss first consolidated amended complaint</strong></strong>

OpenAI moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim with prejudice, on the basis that 17 U.S.C. § 301 expressly preempts it. OpenAI requested for the court to dismiss the claim with prejudice, as the plaintiffs had previously been granted leave to amend and failed in their amended complaint to add the requisite particularity to its claim. OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not state an unfair competition claim, as the plaintiffs fail to allege the “unlawful” element and the “fraudulent” element necessary to support its cause of action. Additionally, OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ claim for “unfair business practices” under the unfair competition law is preempted by the Copyright Act, “as this Court previewed.”

<p>OpenAI moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim with prejudice, on the basis that 17 U.S.C. § 301 expressly preempts it. OpenAI requested for the court to dismiss the claim with prejudice, as the plaintiffs had previously been granted leave to amend and failed in their amended complaint to add the requisite particularity to its claim. OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not state an unfair competition claim, as the plaintiffs fail to allege the “unlawful” element and the “fraudulent” element necessary to support its cause of action. Additionally, OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ claim for “unfair business practices” under the unfair competition law is preempted by the Copyright Act, “as this Court previewed.”</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong><strong>Mar. 27, 2024 – OpenAI filed motion to dismiss first consolidated amended complaint</strong></strong></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"><strong><strong>Mar. 27, 2024 – OpenAI filed motion to dismiss first consolidated amended complaint</strong></strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>OpenAI moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim with prejudice, on the basis that 17 U.S.C. § 301 expressly preempts it. OpenAI requested for the court to dismiss the claim with prejudice, as the plaintiffs had previously been granted leave to amend and failed in their amended complaint to add the requisite particularity to its claim. OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not state an unfair competition claim, as the plaintiffs fail to allege the “unlawful” element and the “fraudulent” element necessary to support its cause of action. Additionally, OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ claim for “unfair business practices” under the unfair competition law is preempted by the Copyright Act, “as this Court previewed.”</p></div></details>

<strong>Mar. 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed amended complaint against all defendants</strong>

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against OpenAI, alleging two causes of action:

<p>Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against OpenAI, alleging two causes of action:</p>

An organized collection of items displayed in a specific order.

core/list

List


<ol class="wp-block-list" style="list-style-type:1">
<li>Direct copyright infringement (Count 1); and </li>



<li>Unfair competition under California state law (Count 2).</li>
</ol>


<ol style="list-style-type:1"><li>Direct copyright infringement (Count 1); and </li><li>Unfair competition under California state law (Count 2).</li></ol>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Mar. 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed amended complaint against all defendants</strong></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"><strong>Mar. 13, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed amended complaint against all defendants</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against OpenAI, alleging two causes of action:</p><ol style="list-style-type:1"><li>Direct copyright infringement (Count 1); and </li><li>Unfair competition under California state law (Count 2).</li></ol></div></details>

<strong>Feb. 29, 2024 – Tremblay filed reply in support of their motion to intervene</strong>

Tremblay plaintiffs responded to defendants’ oppositions to the motion to intervene, stating that defendants only addressed some aspects of the motion but glossed over the main substance, which is the application of the first-to-file rule to these facts. Tremblay plaintiffs argued that it was the extraordinary nature of the defendants’ strategic maneuvering that led them to file the motion to intervene. Defendants initially represented to the SDNY court that they themselves would file a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the actions under the first-to-file rule, but defendants did not obtain the case schedule they desired so they abstained from filing that motion. OpenAI argued that defendants do not and could not take the new position now that the first-to-file rule does not apply because they had previously taken the opposite position, such that the first-to-file rule should apply and the court should rule accordingly.

<p>Tremblay plaintiffs responded to defendants’ oppositions to the motion to intervene, stating that defendants only addressed some aspects of the motion but glossed over the main substance, which is the application of the first-to-file rule to these facts. Tremblay plaintiffs argued that it was the extraordinary nature of the defendants’ strategic maneuvering that led them to file the motion to intervene. Defendants initially represented to the SDNY court that they themselves would file a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the actions under the first-to-file rule, but defendants did not obtain the case schedule they desired so they abstained from filing that motion. OpenAI argued that defendants do not and could not take the new position now that the first-to-file rule does not apply because they had previously taken the opposite position, such that the first-to-file rule should apply and the court should rule accordingly.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Feb. 29, 2024 – Tremblay filed reply in support of their motion to intervene</strong></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"><strong>Feb. 29, 2024 – Tremblay filed reply in support of their motion to intervene</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Tremblay plaintiffs responded to defendants’ oppositions to the motion to intervene, stating that defendants only addressed some aspects of the motion but glossed over the main substance, which is the application of the first-to-file rule to these facts. Tremblay plaintiffs argued that it was the extraordinary nature of the defendants’ strategic maneuvering that led them to file the motion to intervene. Defendants initially represented to the SDNY court that they themselves would file a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the actions under the first-to-file rule, but defendants did not obtain the case schedule they desired so they abstained from filing that motion. OpenAI argued that defendants do not and could not take the new position now that the first-to-file rule does not apply because they had previously taken the opposite position, such that the first-to-file rule should apply and the court should rule accordingly.</p></div></details>

<strong><strong><strong>Feb. 22, 2024 – OpenAI filed opposition to Tremblay motion to intervene</strong></strong></strong>

OpenAI filed opposition to the [98] motion to intervene, arguing that the requested injunction is both inappropriate and unprecedented. OpenAI argued that Tremblay plaintiffs seek to enjoin OpenAI from defending itself but do not intend to prevent the SDNY plaintiffs from continuing to prosecute their claims. OpenAI stated that Tremblay plaintiffs did not cite a single case in which a district court has enjoined a defendant in a separate court from defending itself against a plaintiff’s claims, nor did they present a reason why it was improper for OpenAI to enter into a four-way stipulation with plaintiffs and its co-defendant Microsoft to litigate summary judgment in the SDNY actions. OpenAI requested that the Court deny Tremblay plaintiffs’ motion to intervene.

<p>OpenAI filed opposition to the [98] motion to intervene, arguing that the requested injunction is both inappropriate and unprecedented. OpenAI argued that Tremblay plaintiffs seek to enjoin OpenAI from defending itself but do not intend to prevent the SDNY plaintiffs from continuing to prosecute their claims. OpenAI stated that Tremblay plaintiffs did not cite a single case in which a district court has enjoined a defendant in a separate court from defending itself against a plaintiff’s claims, nor did they present a reason why it was improper for OpenAI to enter into a four-way stipulation with plaintiffs and its co-defendant Microsoft to litigate summary judgment in the SDNY actions. OpenAI requested that the Court deny Tremblay plaintiffs’ motion to intervene.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong><strong><strong>Feb. 22, 2024 – OpenAI filed opposition to Tremblay motion to intervene</strong></strong></strong></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"><strong><strong><strong>Feb. 22, 2024 – OpenAI filed opposition to Tremblay motion to intervene</strong></strong></strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>OpenAI filed opposition to the [98] motion to intervene, arguing that the requested injunction is both inappropriate and unprecedented. OpenAI argued that Tremblay plaintiffs seek to enjoin OpenAI from defending itself but do not intend to prevent the SDNY plaintiffs from continuing to prosecute their claims. OpenAI stated that Tremblay plaintiffs did not cite a single case in which a district court has enjoined a defendant in a separate court from defending itself against a plaintiff’s claims, nor did they present a reason why it was improper for OpenAI to enter into a four-way stipulation with plaintiffs and its co-defendant Microsoft to litigate summary judgment in the SDNY actions. OpenAI requested that the Court deny Tremblay plaintiffs’ motion to intervene.</p></div></details>

<strong><strong><strong>Feb. 12, 2024 – The court granted in part and denied in part OpenAI’s motions to dismiss </strong></strong></strong>

The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend plaintiffs’ claims for vicarious copyright infringement, violation of the DMCA, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim under the “unfair” prong.&nbsp;

<p>The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend plaintiffs’ claims for vicarious copyright infringement, violation of the DMCA, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim under the “unfair” prong.&nbsp;</p>

In dismissing the vicarious copyright infringement claim with leave to amend, the court determined that plaintiffs’ allegation that “every output of the OpenAI Language Models is an infringing derivative work” was insufficient. In the forthcoming amended complaint, the court required that plaintiffs explain what the outputs entail or allege that any particular output is substantially similar – or similar at all – to their books.&nbsp;

<p>In dismissing the vicarious copyright infringement claim with leave to amend, the court determined that plaintiffs’ allegation that “every output of the OpenAI Language Models is an infringing derivative work” was insufficient. In the forthcoming amended complaint, the court required that plaintiffs explain what the outputs entail or allege that any particular output is substantially similar – or similar at all – to their books.&nbsp;</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong><strong><strong>Feb. 12, 2024 – The court granted in part and denied in part OpenAI’s motions to dismiss </strong></strong></strong></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"><strong><strong><strong>Feb. 12, 2024 – The court granted in part and denied in part OpenAI’s motions to dismiss </strong></strong></strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend plaintiffs’ claims for vicarious copyright infringement, violation of the DMCA, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim under the “unfair” prong.&nbsp;</p><p>In dismissing the vicarious copyright infringement claim with leave to amend, the court determined that plaintiffs’ allegation that “every output of the OpenAI Language Models is an infringing derivative work” was insufficient. In the forthcoming amended complaint, the court required that plaintiffs explain what the outputs entail or allege that any particular output is substantially similar – or similar at all – to their books.&nbsp;</p></div></details>

<strong><strong>Feb. 8, 2024 – Tremblay filed motion to intervene in S.D.N.Y cases</strong></strong>

Intervenors Tremblay, Silverman, Kadrey, and Chabon, among others, filed motion to intervene and asked the Southern District of New York to apply the first-to-file rule and dismiss, or in the alternative, stay or transfer <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/alter-v-openai/">Authors Guild, Alter, Basbanes cases</a>, as well as <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/new-york-times-v-microsoft/">New York Times</a>. Intervenors fear that OpenAI “is creating the likelihood—or certainty—of inconsistent rulings in overlapping class actions and the attendant waste of judicial resources.” Intervenors argued that the court should permit intervention as a matter of right, pursuant to FRCP § 24(a)(2). If not, they argued that the court should permit permissive intervention for the fact that the actions involve substantially similar defendants, the same putative nationwide class, the same AI technology, and substantially similar claims.&nbsp; Additionally, they argued that the first-to-file rule warrants dismissal of <em>Authors Guild</em>, <em>Alter</em>, <em>New York Times</em>, and <em>Basbanes</em> because intervenors’ actions are competing lawsuits.

<p>Intervenors Tremblay, Silverman, Kadrey, and Chabon, among others, filed motion to intervene and asked the Southern District of New York to apply the first-to-file rule and dismiss, or in the alternative, stay or transfer <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/alter-v-openai/">Authors Guild, Alter, Basbanes cases</a>, as well as <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/new-york-times-v-microsoft/">New York Times</a>. Intervenors fear that OpenAI “is creating the likelihood—or certainty—of inconsistent rulings in overlapping class actions and the attendant waste of judicial resources.” Intervenors argued that the court should permit intervention as a matter of right, pursuant to FRCP § 24(a)(2). If not, they argued that the court should permit permissive intervention for the fact that the actions involve substantially similar defendants, the same putative nationwide class, the same AI technology, and substantially similar claims.&nbsp; Additionally, they argued that the first-to-file rule warrants dismissal of <em>Authors Guild</em>, <em>Alter</em>, <em>New York Times</em>, and <em>Basbanes</em> because intervenors’ actions are competing lawsuits.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong><strong>Feb. 8, 2024 – Tremblay filed motion to intervene in S.D.N.Y cases</strong></strong></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"><strong><strong>Feb. 8, 2024 – Tremblay filed motion to intervene in S.D.N.Y cases</strong></strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Intervenors Tremblay, Silverman, Kadrey, and Chabon, among others, filed motion to intervene and asked the Southern District of New York to apply the first-to-file rule and dismiss, or in the alternative, stay or transfer <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/alter-v-openai/">Authors Guild, Alter, Basbanes cases</a>, as well as <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/new-york-times-v-microsoft/">New York Times</a>. Intervenors fear that OpenAI “is creating the likelihood—or certainty—of inconsistent rulings in overlapping class actions and the attendant waste of judicial resources.” Intervenors argued that the court should permit intervention as a matter of right, pursuant to FRCP § 24(a)(2). If not, they argued that the court should permit permissive intervention for the fact that the actions involve substantially similar defendants, the same putative nationwide class, the same AI technology, and substantially similar claims.&nbsp; Additionally, they argued that the first-to-file rule warrants dismissal of <em>Authors Guild</em>, <em>Alter</em>, <em>New York Times</em>, and <em>Basbanes</em> because intervenors’ actions are competing lawsuits.</p></div></details>

<strong>Dec. 7, 2023 – Court heard argument on motions to dismiss</strong>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Dec. 7, 2023 – Court heard argument on motions to dismiss</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"></div></details>

<strong>Nov. 27, 2023 – OpenAI’s Notice of <em>Kadrey v. Meta </em>Decision</strong>

OpenAI notified the court of a recent decision in <em>Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc</em>, dismissing a number of related claims, including claims for vicarious copyright infringement, claims under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

<p>OpenAI notified the court of a recent decision in <em>Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc</em>, dismissing a number of related claims, including claims for vicarious copyright infringement, claims under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Nov. 27, 2023 – OpenAI’s Notice of <em>Kadrey v. Meta </em>Decision</strong></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"><strong>Nov. 27, 2023 – OpenAI’s Notice of <em>Kadrey v. Meta </em>Decision</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>OpenAI notified the court of a recent decision in <em>Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc</em>, dismissing a number of related claims, including claims for vicarious copyright infringement, claims under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.</p></div></details>

<strong>Nov. 6, 2023 – Court Order Consolidating Cases</strong>

The court granted parties’ stipulation to consolidate <em>Tremblay v. OpenAI</em>, <em>Silverman v. OpenAI</em>, and <em>Chabon v. OpenAI</em> for all purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The court ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within thirty days of the court’s ruling on <em>Tremblay </em>and <em>Silverman</em> motions to dismiss.

<p>The court granted parties’ stipulation to consolidate <em>Tremblay v. OpenAI</em>, <em>Silverman v. OpenAI</em>, and <em>Chabon v. OpenAI</em> for all purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The court ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within thirty days of the court’s ruling on <em>Tremblay </em>and <em>Silverman</em> motions to dismiss.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Nov. 6, 2023 – Court Order Consolidating Cases</strong></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"><strong>Nov. 6, 2023 – Court Order Consolidating Cases</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>The court granted parties’ stipulation to consolidate <em>Tremblay v. OpenAI</em>, <em>Silverman v. OpenAI</em>, and <em>Chabon v. OpenAI</em> for all purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The court ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within thirty days of the court’s ruling on <em>Tremblay </em>and <em>Silverman</em> motions to dismiss.</p></div></details>

<strong>Nov. 6, 2023 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of <em>Hanagami v. Epic Games</em> Decision</strong>

Plaintiffs notified the court of a recent Ninth Circuit decision, reversing a district court’s decision to dismiss a copyright infringement claim. The Ninth Circuit stated, “it is generally disfavored for copyright claims to be dismissed for lack of substantial similarity at the pleading stage.”

<p>Plaintiffs notified the court of a recent Ninth Circuit decision, reversing a district court’s decision to dismiss a copyright infringement claim. The Ninth Circuit stated, “it is generally disfavored for copyright claims to be dismissed for lack of substantial similarity at the pleading stage.” </p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Nov. 6, 2023 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of <em>Hanagami v. Epic Games</em> Decision</strong></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"><strong>Nov. 6, 2023 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of <em>Hanagami v. Epic Games</em> Decision</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>Plaintiffs notified the court of a recent Ninth Circuit decision, reversing a district court’s decision to dismiss a copyright infringement claim. The Ninth Circuit stated, “it is generally disfavored for copyright claims to be dismissed for lack of substantial similarity at the pleading stage.” </p></div></details>

<strong>Oct. 31, 2023 – OpenAI’s Notice of <em>Andersen</em> Decision</strong>

OpenAI notified the court of a recent decision in <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/andersen-v-stability-ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Andersen v. Stability AI</em>,</a> dismissing a number of related claims, including claims for direct and vicarious copyright infringement, claims under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

<p>OpenAI notified the court of a recent decision in <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/andersen-v-stability-ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Andersen v. Stability AI</em>,</a> dismissing a number of related claims, including claims for direct and vicarious copyright infringement, claims under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.</p>

<details class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion"><summary><h2 class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__title"><strong>Oct. 31, 2023 – OpenAI’s Notice of <em>Andersen</em> Decision</strong></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"><strong>Oct. 31, 2023 – OpenAI’s Notice of <em>Andersen</em> Decision</strong></h2></summary><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-accordion__content"><p>OpenAI notified the court of a recent decision in <a href="https://bakerlawstaging.contentpilot.net/andersen-v-stability-ai/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Andersen v. Stability AI</em>,</a> dismissing a number of related claims, including claims for direct and vicarious copyright infringement, claims under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.</p></div></details>

Summary

What We’re Watching

Case Background

Status Updates

Select Court Documents