Careers

Diversity

With 17 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

Services

Pro Bono

Through the ADventures in Law Blog, BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media team provides updates and analysis on issues and trends in the advertising and marketing industry.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/" 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 <a href="https://www.antitrustadvocate.com/">Antitrust Advocate</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Antitrust Advocate

BakerHostetler’s Blockchain Monitor is a weekly blog curated and written by our in-house team of blockchain attorneys. 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 <a href="https://www.theblockchainmonitor.com/">Blockchain Monitor</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Blockchain Monitor

BakerHostetler successfully defends class actions around the country. Our team consists of seasoned class action litigators who have represented clients in state and federal courts and in multidistrict litigation in areas such as consumer fraud, securities, antitrust, ERISA, RICO, insurance and data breach.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.classactionlawsuitdefense.com/">Class Action Lawsuit Defense</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Class Action Lawsuit Defense

Commentary Addressing Risks and Opportunities Through the Lifecycle of Data, Technology, Advertising and Innovation.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.bakerdatacounsel.com/">Data Counsel</a> 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://www.discoveryadvocate.com/">Discovery Advocate</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Discovery Advocate

BakerHostetler represents employers in a wide array of class action disputes. This blog is written by members of its Labor and Employment Group.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.employmentclassactionreport.com/">Employment Class Action</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Employment Class Action Blog

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://www.employmentlawspotlight.com/">Employment Law Spotlight</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://www.healthlawupdate.com/">Health Law Update</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://www.ipintelligencereport.com/">IP Intelligence Report</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

IP Intelligence Report

Updates from Capitol Hill.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ohioclock.com/">Ohio Clock</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Ohio Clock

Covering energy and environmental law, Pillar and Post will be your “catalog of record” for legal issues as law and policy careen back and forth under the influence of new ideas and enthusiasms.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.bakerenergylaw.com/">Pillar and Post</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Pillar and Post

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://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/">Bargaining Table</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

The Bargaining Table

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

2024 BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective

2024 DSIR Report Deeper Dive

32nd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

33rd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

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

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

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.
Subscribe to The Cloakroom
<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

core/button

core/buttons

core/heading

The Copilot litigation is a putative class action brought by anonymous plaintiffs against GitHub, Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging that defendants used plaintiffs copyrighted materials to create Codex and Copilot. Codex is the OpenAI model that powers GitHub’s AI pair programmer, Copilot. Each of the plaintiffs alleged that Copilot does not comply with the OSS licenses governing plaintiffs’ code that was stored on GitHub.

core/paragraph

The original causes of action included DMCA violations, breach of contract claims, as well as a variety of torts. While this case is touted as the first class action copyright case against an LLM provider, it has never included any claims of direct or indirect copyright infringement.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court found these motions suitable to be decided without oral argument and canceled the hearing. We await the court’s order.&nbsp;

Case Background

Caption: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST

Court: Northern District of California

Judges: District Judge Jon S. Tigar and Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu

Plaintiffs –&nbsp; Five anonymous plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative class, represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick

GitHub and Microsoft – GitHub, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation, represented by Orrick, Herrington &amp; Sutcliffe LLP

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.; OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC; OpenAI LLC; OpenAI Global, LLC; OAI Corporation; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; OpenAI HoldCo, LLC;  OpenAI Startup Fund SPV I, LP; and OpenAI StartupFund SPV GP I, LLC, represented by Morrison &amp; Foerster LLP

Former OpenAI defendants – OpenAI Investment LLC

contentpilot/accordion

Status Updates

September 27, 2024 – Court certifies order for interlocutory appeal and stays case

The court granted plaintiffs’ request to certify the court’s order dismissing the DMCA claims so that the plaintiffs could seek interlocutory appeal. The court stayed these proceedings, and ordered the parties to notify the court within ten days of receiving a decision from the Ninth Circuit on this appeal.

September 11, 2024 – Plaintiffs reply in support of motion to certify

Plaintiffs filed replies in support of their motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the court’s decision to dismiss the DMCA claims. In their brief, plaintiffs argued that a review of district court decisions demonstrate differing views on whether DMCA claims include an identicality requirement. Plaintiffs asked the court to “allow the Ninth Circuit to be the first appellate court in the nation to weigh in on this novel and timely legal question.”

August 21, 2024 – Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ request to certify

Defendants opposed plaintiffs’ request to certify the order dismissing with prejudice the DMCA claims, arguing that the claims were dismissed on “straightforward, fact-specific grounds.”

July 24, 2024 – Plaintiffs request to certify order dismissing DMCA claims for interlocutory appeal

Plaintiffs requested that the court certify its June 24, 2024 dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ DMCA claims. Plaintiffs sought to appeal whether claims under § 1202(b)(1) or (b)(3) contain an element of “identicality.”

July 22, 2024 – Defendants answer second amended complaint

In OpenAI’s answer [265], OpenAI denied liability under any of plaintiffs’ causes of action. OpenAI also raised sixteen affirmative defenses, including that plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.

In Microsoft’s [266] and GitHub’s [267] answers, the defendants denied liability under any of plaintiffs’ causes of action. Both answers noted that plaintiff’s DMCA claim (Count 1) was dismissed with prejudice. The answers also raised seventeen affirmative defenses, including that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and defendants, and that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.

April 15, 2024 – Court denied Motion for Reconsideration regarding Motion to Dismiss 

The court denied plaintiffs’ [218] motion for reconsideration of the court’s [189] dismissing certain claims of the first amended complaint. The order states that the court “stands by its ruling” and plaintiffs’ “motion does not identify a material difference in law or fact, the emergence of new material facts or law, or even a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments to support their position.”

April 10, 2024 – OpenAI replied in support of their motion to dismiss 

OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ opposition confirmed that the [200] Second Amended Complaint did not adequately allege identical copying, and that under the correct interpretation of Section 1202(b), its claim must be dismissed.&nbsp;

OpenAI rejected plaintiffs’ argument that it had waived its right to seek dismissal of the breach of contract claims under Rule 12(g)(2). OpenAI argued that in the interest of judicial economy, the court should consider OpenAI’s criticism of the breach of contract claim.&nbsp;

April 10, 2024 – GitHub and Microsoft replied in support of their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint 

GitHub and Microsoft replied in support of their [215] motion to dismiss the DMCA and unjust enrichment claims of the [200] Second Amended Complaint. Defendants argued that, contrary to plaintiffs’ interpretation, the court’s previous ruling already established that DMCA claims require the copy from which CMI is removed to be “complete and identical version.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and punitive damages should be dismissed, noting that plaintiffs’ opposition did not address defendants’ arguments on the punitive damages claim. Defendants argued that the court has never adopted Restatement (Third) of Restitution&nbsp;and Unjust Enrichment § 39, and that under the proper standard set forth in Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group., Inc., plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim was inadequately pled.&nbsp;

March 27, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed opposition to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss second amended complaint 

Plaintiffs argued that the [200] Second Amended Complaint was sufficiently pled and [229] OpenAI’s motion to dismiss should be denied. In arguing its DMCA claims were adequately pled, plaintiffs relied on the same reasoning they included in their opposition to Microsoft and GitHub’s motion to dismiss.&nbsp;

On the breach of contract claims, plaintiffs argued that OpenAI’s arguments that the claims should be dismissed had already been briefed and rejected in connection with the original complaint. When OpenAI opposed plaintiffs’ [135] First Amended Complaint, OpenAI did not include an argument that these claims should be dismissed. Therefore, plaintiffs argue that Rule 12(g)(2) prevents OpenAI from now moving to dismiss these claims.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Substantively, plaintiffs maintained that they “adequately allege[d] breach of contract based on the operation of OpenAI’s Codex product and its integration into GitHub and OpenAI’s joint venture, the Copilot product.”&nbsp;

March 27, 2024 – Plaintiffs opposed Microsoft and GitHub’s motion to dismiss portions of second amended complaint 

Plaintiffs argued that the [200] Second Amended Complaint was sufficiently pled and [228] Microsoft and GitHub’s motion to dismiss should be accordingly denied. With respect to the DMCA claims, plaintiffs argued that the court had already found its claims adequate in the [135] First Amended Complaint, and that defendants were adding an “extra element” to Section 1202(b) by requiring that the accused work (from which CMI is removed) must be identical to the underlying work, and, in any event, the plaintiffs pled that Copilot reproduces identical copies. Plaintiffs also maintained that their unjust enrichment claim was sufficiently pled and that the jury should decide whether plaintiffs are entitled to restitution for defendants’ breach of the open-source licenses.&nbsp;

March 15, 2024 – Defendants opposed plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration 

GitHub and Microsoft jointly filed an opposition [228] to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration related to the court’s dismissal of certain claims in the First Amended Complaint [135], arguing that plaintiffs’ waived and mooted such a request by filing the Second Amended Complaint [200].&nbsp;

OpenAI opposed [229] plaintiffs’ motion on similar grounds, arguing that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of Civil Local Rules 7-9(b)(3) and 7-9(b)(1) as plaintiffs’ arguments rested on out-of-circuit precedent and a disagreement with the court’s analysis.

Feburary 28, 2024 – OpenAI filed motion to dismiss second amended complaint 

OpenAI moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ DMCA claim and breach of contract for violations of open-source software licenses claim. OpenAI argued that plaintiffs’ new DMCA claim does not cure the deficiency by which the court previously dismissed the claim, as the new claim fails to allege that GitHub’s Copilot product outputs identical copies of plaintiffs’ code. As to the breach of contract claim, OpenAI argued that plaintiffs only allege breach of contract based on the operation of Copilot and Copilot’s outputs, which plaintiffs have conceded are controlled by GitHub, not OpenAI. OpenAI also introduced the argument that plaintiffs’ theory of breach is based on OpenAI’s failure to meet conditions on the license grant, rather than contractual covenants, which at most would give rise to an action for copyright infringement (due to an alleged lack of license), not an action for breach of contract. OpenAI asked the court to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining claims against OpenAI without leave to amend.

Feburary 28, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration 

Plaintiffs requested leave to move for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ damages and injunctive relief claims under DMCA. Plaintiffs argued that for two of the plaintiffs, Doe 3 and Doe 4, such requests should still apply.

Feburary 28, 2024 – GitHub and Microsoft filed motion to dismiss portions of the second amended complaint 

GitHub and Microsoft moved to dismiss with portions of [200] plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. GitHub and Microsoft argued that plaintiffs’ DMCA claims should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim because the factual allegations required to support necessary elements are missing/implausible. Additionally, they argued that plaintiffs’ requests for unjust enrichment and punitive damages should be dismissed as improper and unsupported.&nbsp;&nbsp;

In response to plaintiffs’ DMCA claims, GitHub and Microsoft argued that plaintiffs still fail to state a claim because (1) they fail to identify any copyrighted work from which CMI has been or is likely to be removed; (2) they fail to meet the §1202(b)’s identicality requirement as their claims fail to allege the removal of CMI from an identical copy of the underlying work; and (3) they cannot allege the requirement likelihood that Copilot will result in copyright infringement of any of plaintiffs’ works.&nbsp;

GitHub and Microsoft argued that plaintiffs’ requests for monetary relief in the form of unjust enrichment and punitive damages were improper, noting the court had previously dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim and state law tort claims that could have supported plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages.

January 25, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint

In response to the Court’s Order [190, 195] dismissing some of plaintiffs’ claims, plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint [200], adding new OpenAI entities as defendants. Plaintiffs alleged the following three causes of action:

core/list

Plaintiffs reframed their CMI claims from the first amended complaint [98], alleging a “substantial risk” that defendants will distribute copies of plaintiffs’ code without proper CMI. In support, plaintiffs alleged that recent research indicates that the problem of memorization (when AI outputs verbatim portions of its dataset) will only continue to grow as the model itself grows.

January 3, 2024 – Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss

In a one-page order [190], the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. In this redacted order, the court did not indicate which parts of the motion it granted or denied. In the redacted order [195], the Court found that some, but not all, of the defendants now have alleged particular personalized injury sufficient to confer standing for monetary damages. The Court rejected defendants’ theory that, by prompting Copilot to output their copyrighted code, plaintiffs had “manufactured standing” contrary to Clapper v. Amnesty International. The Court found the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Cruz more instructive: “an injury resulting from an unlawful act&nbsp; ‘remains fairly traceable’ to that act, ‘even if the injury could be described in some sense as willingly occurred.’” For those defendants (Does 3 and 4) that did not plead specific instances in which Copilot output their code, they lack standing for monetary damages.

The court agreed that the Copyright Act preempted plaintiffs’ state law claims: intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, unjust enrichment, negligence, and unfair competition predicated upon state law claims. The Court found that the state law claims assert “equivalent rights” to those protected by the Copyright Act: reproduction, distribution, and creation of derivative works.

The Court found that DMCA “Section&nbsp;1202(b) claims require the copies be ‘identical,’” so that an output that is a “modified format,” “variation[],” or “functional[] equivalent” cannot form the basis for a §&nbsp;1202(b) claim.

November 9, 2023 – Argument heard on motions to dismiss 

The transcript is not yet available.&nbsp;

August 10, 2023 – Defendants filed replies in support of their motions to dismiss

GitHub-Microsoft Reply. The reply [146] characterized the Copilot functionality differently: Instead of being a “copy-paste machine,” Copilot is generative product that "has learned common functional concepts” and “generates context-dependent suggestions that incorporate that learning.” Under this theory, defendants argued that Copilot does not reproduce attribution information because it does not reproduce anything, so that plaintiffs’ “reproduction-without-attribution theory” fails.

OpenAI Reply. In their reply [147], OpenAI emphasized that plaintiffs’ offered injury is not plausible, as plaintiffs show that Copilot will output plaintiffs’ code only in response to plaintiffs’ inputting “substantial portions of their own code.” OpenAI maintained that none of the plaintiffs have standing, but also differentiates Does 1, 2 and 5 from Does 3 and 4 — pointing out that the former rely only on their own post-complaint acts to show harm.

July 27, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss

In their oppositions [140, 142], plaintiffs characterized the differences between the Copilot output and plaintiffs’ code as “minor cosmetic changes that do not alter its function or essential expressive content” and argued they are so similar that “Copilot could have only cribbed its answers from one place: Plaintiffs’ GitHub repositories.” They attacked the standing challenges as improperly relying on factual assertions that cannot be dismissed before discovery.

Plaintiffs maintained each of their claims satisfies Rule 12(b)(6). On the §&nbsp;1202(b) claims, plaintiffs maintain the DMCA has no requirement that the copy from which CMI is removed be identical. On the state tort claims, plaintiffs argued that because the pleadings rely on “unauthorized use” of the work, the claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act.

July 21, 2023 – Plaintiffs corrected amended complaint

The only changes were to clarify that the common law applicable to Counts 3-8 is California common law. [135]

June 29, 2023 – Defendants filed two motions to dismiss amended complaint

GitHub-Microsoft Motion. This motion to dismiss [108] challenged plaintiffs’ Article III standing to pursue damages, arguing the injury cannot be “self-inflicted” or “predicated on events that post-date the filing of the lawsuit.” Defendants also maintained that there is no cognizable injury from training the technology on plaintiffs’ materials.

GitHub and Microsoft also moved to dismiss all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), except for the breach of contract claims (Counts 2-3).

Defendants took issue with the examples added to the amended complaint, characterized as created “by [Plaintiffs] mechanistically entering their own code into a code editor until Copilot generated a suggestion completion that looked alike (but still differed from) Plaintiffs’.” Defendants argued these “contrived examples simply confirm how implausible it is that Copilot has ever actually generated a copy of Plaintiffs’ code.” Defendants emphasized that the complaint acknowledges that Copilot outputs are “more often than not” variations of the plaintiffs’ code snippet, not identical copies. Defendants also re-raised the issue of whether plaintiffs need to allege CMI was removed from “identical copies” to meet the statutory requirements of §&nbsp;1202(b).

OpenAI Motion. In its motion [110], OpenAI moved to dismiss all claims asserted against OpenAI except for the claim for breaching OSS licenses (Count 2). In addition to advancing theories consistent with Microsoft and GitHub’s, OpenAI also argued: Count 4 should be dismissed for failure to plead the economic relationship between plaintiffs and a third party, disruption of that relationship and harm (and OpenAI’s requisite knowledge and intent); Counts 5 and 8 should be dismissed for failure to plead OpenAI had a duty of care to plaintiffs; Count 6 should be dismissed as there is no standalone cause of action for unjust enrichment; and Count 7 should be dismissed for failing to plead an adequate legal remedy or economic injury or allege sufficient facts to support the claim.

June 8, 2023 – Plaintiffs filed amended complaint

In response to the Court’s Order [95] granting in part of defendants’ motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint [98], alleging the following eight causes of action:

The amended complaint includes more examples demonstrating Copilot’s outputting “essentially verbatim” and modified copies of the anonymous plaintiffs’ code, though the substance of these allegations are redacted from the public version of the complaint.

May 11, 2023 – The court ruled on the motions to dismiss

The court issued an order [95] granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Standing. The court held that plaintiffs did not adequately plead injury-in-fact to confer standing over their privacy-based claims and granted leave to amend. The court also found that plaintiffs did not have standing for retrospective relief for injury arising from defendants’ breach of licensing terms, nor did plaintiffs’ claims of an increased risk of misappropriation confer standing for damages. However, the court suggested the same allegations may support standing for injunctive relief.

Identification of the parties. The court upheld the anonymity of the plaintiffs, finding that at least at this pleading stage, there is no prejudice to defendants, acknowledging that this may change as the case proceeds to discovery. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the complaint does not sufficiently identify which defendant entity is alleged to have performed which acts in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Claims dismissed. The court generally granted leave to amend the claims that it dismissed, except plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and declaratory relief (Counts 11-12), which it dismissed with prejudice as not being cognizable causes of action.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the claims for DMCA §&nbsp;1202(a) violations (part of Count 1), tortious interference, fraud, false designation of origin, CCPA violations, unjust enrichment and unfair competition (Count 3-7, 9).

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim (Count 6) with leave to amend. The court agreed with plaintiffs that unjust enrichment claims based on defendants’ use of the works, are not preempted, as “use” is not a right protected by the Copyright Act.&nbsp; However, the court noted that the complaint’s unjust enrichment claim did not rely on “use” of the work, but only on reproduction and preparation of derivative works, which is preempted.

Regarding the §&nbsp;1202(b) claims, the court found the plaintiffs adequately pled the knowledge requirement of § 1202(b)(1) and (b)(3) but not §&nbsp;1202(b)(2). The order did not address defendants’ arguments that plaintiffs need to identify which works had their CMI removed.

Claims not dismissed. The court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of license claims, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently identified the licenses and described the provisions they allege defendants breached (attribution, notice, and license inclusion).

April 6, 2023 – Defendants filed their reply briefs

GitHub and Microsoft’s reply brief [72] and OpenAI’s brief [73] both focused on the argument that plaintiffs do not allege with reasonable certainty that Copilot has (or, with reasonably certainty, will) output plaintiffs’ code, so there is no injury-in-fact, which is required for Article III standing. Defendants maintained the plaintiffs should not proceed anonymously, arguing that plaintiffs’ fear of harm must be reasonable, and the threats to their counsel do not meet this threshold. Defendants also maintained the contract claims were not adequately pleaded, pointing out that the complaint does not identify which provisions of which of the open source licenses they allege were breached.

On the DMCA claims, defendants argued that plaintiffs have not identified the works from which CMI was removed (or what that CMI was), or sufficiently pleaded the double scienter requirements. Through this theory, defendants raised the issue of the protectability of the excerpts of code from which CMI was allegedly removed, as well as the fair use defense: If the excerpts were not protectable, or if defendants intended to aid fair use, then, defendants argue, then plaintiffs’ claims fail as defendant could not have knowledge that removing the CMI would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal copyright infringement” required by §&nbsp;1202(b).

Defendants also argued that plaintiffs have abandoned their tortious interference fraud, reverse passing off, and other claims predicated on personal identifying information.

March 9, 2023 – Plaintiffs responded to motions to dismiss

(For best readability, we recommend reading the [67] opposition to OpenAI’s motion before reading the [66] opposition to GitHub and Microsoft’s motion.)

On the issue of standing, plaintiffs argued their injury is particularized because “it is a virtual certainty any particular plaintiff’s code will be displayed either with copyright notices removed or in violation of” the open source licensing terms and depriving plaintiffs of attribution, which itself has “intrinsic value,” as well as “future career opportunities and increasing reputation and authority of the author.” Plaintiffs argued that “Codex and Copilot’s policy of ignoring open-source licenses is not a bug, but a feature.” Plaintiffs also presented arguments that (1) plaintiffs should be able to proceed anonymously, (2) DMCA Section 1202(b) claims need not be based on an identical copy of the work, but could extend to collaborative or derivative works, (3) fair use doctrine is irrelevant as it does not provide a defense for DMCA violations (and plaintiffs are not raising a copyright infringement claim), and (4) claims for civil conspiracy and negligence (Counts 10-11) and other state law claims are not preempted by the Copyright Act.

January 26, 2023 – Defendants filed two motions to dismiss

Defendants challenged plaintiffs’ standing and anonymity and the complaints’ compliance with the pleading requirements.

GitHub-Microsoft Motion. GitHub and Microsoft moved to dismiss the entire complaint based on lack of standing (under Article III) and failure to state a claim (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). [50] Among other theories, the defendants allege that the claims for tortious interference, fraud, and unfair competition claims (Courts 3, 6-7) are preempted by the Copyright Act; the reverse passing off claims (Count 5) are barred under the Supreme Court’s Dastar decision; the privacy claims (Counts 8-10) do not allege a privacy violation or data breach; claims of unjust enrichment and conspiracy (Counts 6, 11) are not causes of action in California; and the declaratory relief claim (Count 12) does not include an redressable injury.

OpenAI Motion. OpenAI moved to dismiss all claims asserted against it (Counts 1-3, 5-7, 9-12) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. [53] In addition to legal theories that align with those presented in GitHub and Microsoft’s motion, OpenAI alleged that the complaint is deficient because its allegations against the six OpenAI entities are undifferentiated.

November 3, 2022 – Plaintiffs filed class action complaint

Anonymous plaintiffs represented by Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Matthew Butterick filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California against GitHub, Microsoft and OpenAI. The complaint included the following 12 causes of action arising from the defendants’ creation and marketing of OpenAI’s Codex (a general-purpose programming model) and GitHub’s Copilot (a programming assistant powered by Codex):

Select Court Documents

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-1-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Nov. 3, 2022 – ECF 1 Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-50-Microsoft-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 26, 2023 – ECF 50 GitHub-Microsoft Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-53-OpenAI-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 26, 2023 – ECF 53 OpenAI Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-66-Opposition-to-Microsoft-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">March 9, 2023 – ECF 66 Opposition to [50] GitHub-Microsoft Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-67-Opposition-to-OpenAI-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">March 9, 2023 – ECF 67 Opposition to [53] OpenAI Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-72-Microsoft-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 6, 2023 – ECF 72 GitHub-Microsoft Reply ISO [50] Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-73-OpenAI-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">April 6, 2023 – ECF 73 OpenAI Reply ISO [53] Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-95-Order-on-Motions-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May 11, 2023 – ECF 95 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part [50, 53] Motions to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-98-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 8, 2023 – ECF 98 First Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-108-Github-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 29, 2023 – ECF 108 GitHub-Microsoft Motion to Dismiss [98] First Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-110-OpenAI-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">June 29, 2023 – ECF 110 OpenAI Motion to Dismiss [98] First Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-135-Corrected-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 21, 2023 – ECF 135 Corrected First Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-140-Opposition-to-Microsoft-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 27, 2023 – ECF 140 Opposition to [108] GitHub-Microsoft Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-142-Opposition-to-OpenAI-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 27, 2023 – ECF 142 Opposition to [110] OpenAI Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-146-Github-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aug. 10, 2023 – ECF 146 GitHub-Microsoft Reply ISO [108] Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ECF-146-Github-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aug. 10, 2023 – ECF 147 OpenAI Reply ISO [110] Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-190-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 3, 2024 - ECF 190 Redacted Order Granting and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-195-Order-Denying-Granting-in-Part-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 20, 2024 – ECF 195 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECF-200-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 25, 2024 – ECF 200 Second Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-215-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 28, 2024 – ECF 215 GitHub and Microsoft Motion to Dismiss</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-218-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Leave.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 28, 2024 – ECF 218 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ECF-219-OpenAI-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 28, 2024 – ECF 219 OpenAI Motion to Dismiss</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-228-GitHub-Microsoft-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Reconsideration.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 15, 2024 – ECF 228 GitHub and Microsoft’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration&nbsp;</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-229-OpenAI-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Reconsideration.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 15, 2024 – ECF 229 OpenAI Opposition to Motion for Leave&nbsp;</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-234-Opposition-to-215-Microsoft-and-Github-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 27, 2024 – ECF 234 Opposition to [215] Microsoft and GitHub Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-235-Opposition-to-219-OpenAI-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 27, 2024 – ECF 235 Opposition to [219] OpenAI Motion to Dismiss</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-241-Github-and-Microsoft-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apr. 10, 2024 – ECF 241 GitHub and Microsoft Reply ISO Motion to Dismiss&nbsp;</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-244-OpenAI-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apr. 10, 2024 – ECF 244 OpenAI Reply ISO Motion to Dismiss&nbsp;</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ECF-246-Court-Order-Re-Motion-for-Reconsideration.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apr. 15, 2024 – ECF 246 Court Order Re Motion for Reconsideration </a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Dkt-265-Answer-to-Second-Amended-Complaint-by-OAI.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 22, 2024 – ECF 265 OpenAI Answer to Second Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Dkt-266-Answer-to-Amended-Complaint-by-Microsoft-Corporation.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 22, 2024 – ECF 266 Microsoft Answer to Second Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Dkt-267-Answer-to-Amended-Complaint-by-GitHub-Inc.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 22, 2024 – ECF 267 GitHub Answer to Second Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Dkt-268-Motion-for-Leave-to-Appeal-Pursuant-TO-28-U.S.C.-§-1292B.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">July 24, 2024 – ECF 268 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal</a>