OpenAI's Reply to the Amended Complaint: What They Have to Say

Case Number: 3:22-cv-06823-KAW

Plaintiff: J. DOE 1 and J. DOE 2

Defendant: GITHUB, INC., a Delaware corporation; MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; OPENAI, INC., a Delaware nonprofit corporation; OPENAI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI GP, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Filing Date: December 9, 2022

Location: United States District Court

Northern District of California San Francisco Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Any Injury-in-Fact to Establish Article III Standing

1. Does 1, 2, and 5 cannot establish standing by showing their own postcomplaint acts harmed them.
2. Does 3 and 4 also lack standing.
3. Plaintiffs’ hunch that their code has been output does not justify jurisdictional discovery.

B. The Copyright Act Preempts Plaintiffs’ State Law Causes of Action

C. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a DMCA Claim Under Section 1202(b)

1. Plaintiffs have not pled removal of CMI.

2. Plaintiffs fail to allege removal from identical copies.

D. Plaintiffs’ Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claims Fail

E. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

F. Plaintiffs Fail to State an Unfair Competition Claim

G. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Negligence

III. CONCLUSION