2025 Hearing Lawsuit 
Martindale-Avvo
JUNE 18, 2025
The landscape of mass torts in 2025 builds on the active litigation from the past few years. New and emerging claims on untested issues, like mental health harms from social media and processed food addiction, stand to make 2025 a standout year for torts. In October 2025, the first trials begin, with novel legal arguments anticipated.
Justia Legal Marketing & Technology blog
FEBRUARY 18, 2025
Our upcoming webinar will explore these evolving intersections by diving into high-profile lawsuits that are shaping the legal boundaries of AI, analyzing legal tests and arguments involved, examining the implications of the DMCA concerning AI, and discussing potential liabilities and legal uncertainties for developers and rights holders.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Debevoise Data Blog
JANUARY 13, 2025
Generative AI has transformed how people around the world work; how they create; and what they see, hear, and watch online. Despite the busy 2024 litigation year against companies offering AI platforms in 2024, significant intellectual property questions remain unanswered as the calendar turns to 2025. In Millette v. OpenAI, Inc.,
Brett Trout
JULY 25, 2025
Brett Trout On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Yuga Labs’ big trademark win over artists Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen. The court reversed the nearly $9 million summary judgment from the Central District of California and sent the case back for trial. Key Takeaways NFTs are still goods under the Lanham Act.
Eric Goldman
MAY 20, 2025
Third, the court is correct that a blog post without any promotion can be the tree that falls in the forest that no one hears. Hill , 2025 WL 1417103 (9th Cir. May 16, 2025) The post Photos in a Similar Style Aren’t Copyright-Infringing–Woodland v. Case Citation : Woodland v.
Richmond Journal of Law and Technology
MARCH 21, 2025
But what exactly is threatening movie theaters in 2025? 9] Hearing the case on appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-monopolistic requirements, ordering the divestment of these major studios from their cinemas to ensure more widespread competition. [10] 3, 2025), [link] [3] J. 2, 2025), [link] 131 (1948). [6]
Eric Goldman
MARCH 4, 2025
Based on this ruling, Viral DRM’s earlier SAD Scheme lawsuit also may have been deficient on copyright standing grounds. However, a court would almost never independently spot the standing problem at an ex parte TRO hearing. 2025 WL 660250 (N.D. 28, 2025) Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme Another N.D. Emoji GmbH v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content