AI on the Docket: A Roundup of Case News

 Issue 26

Last week this newsletter covered the opinion on motions to dismiss for the New York Times copyright consolidated case group. This week I have a roundup of four other AI-related case developments to share with you:  

Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence Stayed Pending Appeal 

In Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., the Hon. Stephanos Bibas granted Ross's motion for interlocutory appeal and stay pending appeal, certifying two questions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: (1) whether the West headnotes and key number system are original, (2) and whether Ross's use of the headnotes was fair use.[i] The May 2025 trial date has been postponed pending the appeal.[ii]  

For my earlier newsletter coverage of this case, you can see Issue 17, A Win for Thomson Reuters in its Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Ross Intelligence. 

Twelve Cases Against OpenAI Centralized in SDNY 

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled on the OpenAI defendants’ motion to centralize twelve actions pending against them in the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York, with centralization requested in the Northern District of California.[iii] The Panel found that centralization in the Southern District of New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and the witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”[iv] As such, the following Northern District of California cases have been ordered transferred to the Southern District of New York and assigned to the Hon. Sidney H. Stein: 

•  David Millette v. OpenAI et al., No. 3:24-cv-04710 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2024); 
•  In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation consolidated case group consisting of: 

o   Paul Tremblay et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal. filed Jun. 28, 2023); 

o   Sarah Silverman et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-03416 (N.D. Cal. filed Jul. 7, 2023); and 

o   Michael Chabon et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-04625 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 8, 2023).[v] 

If you would like a visual aid to help you understand the 40+ AI-related copyright infringement lawsuits,
you can get my free explainer charts here.

For my previous newsletter coverage of the AI-related copyright infringement lawsuits, you can see my January 2025 newsletter
issue 13 here. 

Preliminary Injunction Denied and Motions to Dismiss Granted in Concord Music Group v. Anthropic 

A bit of background on this case: on November 16, 2023, plaintiffs in Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. v. Anthropic PBC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to 1) require Anthropic to implement guardrails in its current AI models to prevent output reproducing, distributing, or displaying plaintiffs’ lyrics, and 2) preclude Anthropic from creating or using unauthorized copies of plaintiffs’ lyrics to train future AI models.[vi] On June 24, 2024, the Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. found that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Anthropic and ordered the matter transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[vii] On August 1, 2024, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary injunction.[viii] Various trade groups filed briefs as amici curiae both in support and in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.[ix]  

On January 2, 2025, the Hon. Eumi K. Lee signed an order regarding the preliminary injunction motion, in which the parties stipulated that Anthropic would maintain guardrails it had implemented and apply guardrails on future AI products.[x] On March 25, 2025, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.[xi] The order explained that plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief to address alleged copyright infringement based on Claude’s input as well as Claude’s output, and that with respect to output-based infringement, the issue was resolved by the parties’ stipulation.[xii] With respect to Claude’s input, the Hon. Eumi K. Lee found that plaintiffs were not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction because the proposed injunction was overly broad, and plaintiffs failed to meet the prerequisite of a showing of irreparable harm.[xiii]  

Additionally, on March 26, 2025, the court issued an order granting Anthropic’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and removal of copyright information.[xiv]  

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Affirms Human Authorship is a Requirement for Copyright 

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler sought to register a piece of AI-generated art for copyright.[xv] The application for copyright was denied on the grounds that the work lacked human authorship, a prerequisite for a valid copyright, according to the Register of Copyrights.[xvi] Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the United States Copyright Office and Shira Perlmutter, in her official capacity as the Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office, challenging the denial.[xvii] Upon summary judgment the court affirmed the denial of the application for copyright on the basis that human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.[xviii]  

On October 11, 2023, Mr. Thaler filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On March 18, 2025, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s copyright application, finding that the Copyright Act “requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.”[xix]  

Thanks for being here. 

Jennifer Ballard
Good Journey Consulting

P.S. Have you considered whether your clients may have AI-related claims or liabilities? There are over 60 AI-related lawsuits I’m tracking in areas including copyright infringement, copyright and patent applications, privacy, discrimination, facial recognition, healthcare, libel, lie detection, wiretapping, FOIA, malware, school suspensions, deepfakes, wire fraud, wrongful death, and antitrust. You can find summaries of all of these cases in Chapter 4 of A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI. 

[i] Order, Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. filed May 6, 2020) 

[ii] Id. 

[iii] Transfer Order at 1, MDL No. 3143.  

[iv] Id. at 1-2. 

[v] Id. at Schedule A. 

[vi] Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1-2, Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:23-cv-01092 (M.D. Ten. filed Oct. 18, 2023). 

[vii] Memorandum Opinion and Order, Concord. 

[viii] Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Concord. 

[ix] Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction dated August 5, 2024, Motion By Chamber of Progress and Netchoice, LLC for leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Concord. 

[x] Stipulation and Order Regarding Preliminary Injunction Motion at 5, Concord. 

[xi] Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Concord. 

[xii] Id. at 4. 

[xiii] Id. at 6-7. 

[xiv] Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend, Concord. 

[xv] Memorandum Opinion at 1, Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter et al., No. 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2022). 

[xvi] Id. 

[xvii] Id. 

[xviii] Id. 

[xix] Opinion at 3, Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter et al., No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 11, 2023).