paint-brush
Doe Vs. GitHub: GitHub Seeks to Dismiss Copyright Lawsuitby@legalpdf

Doe Vs. GitHub: GitHub Seeks to Dismiss Copyright Lawsuit

by Legal PDFSeptember 22nd, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Github Motion to dismiss Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - Doe Vs. GitHub: GitHub Seeks to Dismiss Copyright Lawsuit
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

Github Motion to dismiss Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts.


Case Number: 4:22-cv-06823-JST

Plaintiff: J.DOE

Defendant: GITHUB

Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Filing Date: January 26, 2023

Location: US District Court Northern District of California, Oakland Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ISSUES


ALLEGATIONS OF THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT

A. OpenAI Develops A Generative AI Tool Called Codex.

B. GitHub Offers Copilot, A Code Completion Tool Built On Codex.

C. Plaintiffs Sue Based On An Attribution Theory.


ARGUMENT

I. PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING AND THEREFORE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ALLEGED ACTUAL OR THREATENED INJURY

A. Plaintiffs’ Lack-Of-Attribution Theory Is Insufficient To Confer Standing.

B. Plaintiffs Also Do Not Allege Privacy-Based Injury.


II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A DMCA CLAIM.

A. Plaintiffs Cannot Allege The Required Likelihood Of Infringement.

B. Count I Impermissibly Lumps Together Multiple Defendants, Claims, And Theories Of Liability.

C. Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged That GitHub Or Microsoft Intentionally Or Knowingly Removes Or Alters CMI Under § 1202(b).

D. Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged That GitHub Or Microsoft Provides, Distributes, Or Imports For Distribution Any False CMI


III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A BREACH-OF-LICENSE CLAIM.

A. Plaintiffs Fail To Specify The Contract Provisions Allegedly Breached.

B. To The Extent Count II Is Based On Training Copilot With Code Found In Public Repositories, It Is Foreclosed By GitHub’s Terms Of Service.

C. Plaintiffs Have Not Plausibly Alleged Breach Based On An Output Theory.


IV. PLAINTIFFS’ TORT AND UCL CLAIMS FAIL.

A. Plaintiffs’ Tort And UCL Claims Are Preempted By The Copyright Act.

B. Plaintiffs Do Not Plausibly Allege A Contract Or Business Expectancy, Nor Defendants’ Knowledge Of One As Required For An Interference With Economic Advantage Claim.

C. Plaintiffs’ Fraud Claim Against GitHub Is Barred By The Economic Loss Rule And Fails Rule 9.

D. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring A UCL Unlawful Competition Claim And Fail To State A Claim.


V. PLAINTIFFS’ REVERSE PASSING OFF CLAIM IS BARRED UNDER DASTAR.

VI. PLAINTIFFS’ PRIVACY CLAIMS AGAINST GITHUB FAIL.

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ UNJUST ENRICHMENT, CONSPIRACY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF ALLEGATIONS FAIL ALONG WITH THE UNDERLYING CLAIMS.

CONCLUSION




About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 11, 2023, from documentcloud.org is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.