OpenAI Claims the Allegations Against Them Fail to Satisfy Requirements - OpenAI Lawsuit Details

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Complaint Fails for Reasons Applicable to All Causes of Action.

3. The Complaint’s Undifferentiated Allegations Against the Six OpenAI Entities Fail to Satisfy Pleading Requirements.

Plaintiffs have also failed to specify what acts they contend each of the six OpenAI Entities committed individually, requiring dismissal. A complaint that “lumps together multiple defendants in one broad allegation fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8(a)(2).” Sebastian Brown Prods. v. Muzooka Inc., 143 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (cleaned up).

Where a plaintiff sues multiple defendants, “the complaint must specify exactly what each separate defendant is alleged to have done to cause plaintiff harm.” Rosas v. City of Santa Rosa, No. 21-CV-06179-JST, 2022 WL 2158968, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2022) (cleaned up).

Plaintiffs fail to meet this standard. Through the body of the complaint, the six OpenAI Entities are referred to collectively as “OpenAI.” (See, e.g., Compl. at 1 n.1.) After alleging that “OpenAI” was involved in “launch[ing] Copilot” and “debut[ing] its Codex product,” the complaint proceeds to accuse the various OpenAI Entities collectively of violating Plaintiffs’ “intellectual-property rights, licenses, and other rights” by using unidentified code from GitHub’s public repositories. (See id. ¶¶ 8-9, 139.)

But this is not a case in which the acts alleged against each OpenAI Entity are the same. Indeed, the complaint concedes that each OpenAI Entity performed distinct activities and that not all Entities played a role in developing Copilot and Codex. (Compare id. ¶¶ 23-28.)

In describing the parties, Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI, Inc. and OpenAI, L.P. “programmed, trained, and maintains Codex,” which provides “an integral piece of Copilot.” (Id. ¶ 23.) The complaint does not allege that OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P., OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C., and OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC played any role in developing Codex or Copilot. (See id. ¶¶ 25-28.)

Plaintiffs’ indiscriminate lumping together of the OpenAI Entities violates Rule 8(a)(2)’s notice requirement. The complaint fails to provide fair notice to Defendants as it merely alleges wrongdoing against “OpenAI” or “Defendants” without specifying which OpenAI Entity allegedly committed the act. (See Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, 14, 37, 43-44, 47, 63, 66, 82-84, 134-141.)