O+Z cases are at the forefront of shaping intellectual property law, shutting down illegal activity, and vindicating creators’ rights.

Notable Cases

We are leaders in protecting the rights of content creators.

  • Advance v. Cohere
    We are representing several news publishers including Condé Nast, The Atlantic, and Vox in a copyright and trademark infringement action against Cohere, an artificial intelligence company, for its unauthorized use and copying of the publishers’ news and magazine articles and brand names. (Southern District of New York)
  • Bartz v. Anthropic
    We are representing the book publishing industry as Publishers’ Coordinating Counsel in a copyright infringement class action against Anthropic, an artificial intelligence company, asserting claims for Anthropic’s unlicensed downloading from pirated sources of millions of copyrighted books. (Northern District of California)
  • Concord v. Anthropic
    We are representing Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO Music, Inc. in a copyright infringement litigation against Anthropic, an artificial intelligence company, for its unauthorized use and copying of musical compositions with its large language model, Claude. (Northern District of California)

We spearhead cutting-edge litigation against internet access providers who turn a blind eye to use of their network for infringement.

  • UMG v. Bright House
    We represented Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Sony Music Publishing, and Warner Chappell in a copyright infringement litigation against Bright House Networks, an ISP, alleging Bright House assisted its subscribers’ repeated uploading and downloading of copyrighted music through peer-to-peer networks such as Bit-Torrent. The case involved over 7,000 copyrights, and it settled at the start of trial. (Middle District of Florida)
  • UMG v. Frontier
    We represented Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and ABKCO in a copyright infringement litigation against Frontier Communications, alleging Frontier assisted and profited from its subscribers’ repeated uploading and downloading of copyrighted music through peer-to-peer networks such as Bit-Torrent. We obtained a favorable ruling denying Frontier’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case settled on the eve of trial. (Southern District of New York)
  • Sony Music v. Cox
    We obtained a landmark $1 billion jury verdict against one of the nation’s largest internet service providers (“ISPs”), Cox Communications, on behalf of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Sony/ATV, and Warner Chappell. After a three-week trial, the jury found Cox liable for willful contributory and vicarious infringement, for assisting and profiting from its subscribers’ uploading and downloading of copyrighted music through peer-to-peer networks such as Bit-Torrent. The litigation involves over 10,000 copyrights and it was reported as the fifth largest jury verdict in the United States in 2019. It sends an important message to ISPs. While the Fourth Circuit reversed the vicarious liability verdict and remanded for a new trial on damages, it affirmed the jury’s verdict of willful contributory infringement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of contributory liability and will hear arguments on that issue this upcoming term. (Eastern District of Virginia; Fourth Circuit; Supreme Court)
  • Warner v. Altice
    We are representing Warner Music Group, Warner Chappell, Sony Music Entertainment, and Sony Music Publishing in a copyright infringement litigation against Altice USA, Inc., an ISP, alleging Altice assisted and profited from its subscribers’ repeated uploading and downloading of copyrighted music through peer-to-peer networks such as Bit-Torrent. The case involves over 10,000 copyrighted works. (Eastern District of Texas)
  • Warner v. Charter
    We represented Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, Sony Music Publishing, and Warner Chappell in a copyright infringement litigation against Charter Communications, an ISP, alleging Charter assisted and profited from its subscribers’ repeated uploading and downloading of copyrighted music through peer-to-peer networks such as Bit-Torrent. The case involved over 10,000 copyrights, and it settled after discovery but prior to trial. (District of Colorado)

We fight to hold social media, e-commerce, and other platforms accountable for facilitating and profiting from infringement.

  • American Chemical Society v. ResearchGate
    We represented two leading journal publishers, American Chemical Society and Elsevier, in a large-scale, high-profile copyright infringement litigation against ResearchGate, an online social network and file sharing/download service operated from Europe, based on ResearchGate’s unauthorized copying and distribution of peer-reviewed published journal articles. After discovery, the matter was resolved via a settlement and entry of an injunction that requires ResearchGate to take specified steps to prevent unauthorized use of our clients’ copyrighted works. (District of Maryland)
  • Bedford Freeman & Worth v. Shopify
    We represented our long-time educational publishing industry clients, Cengage, Elsevier, Macmillan Learning, McGraw Hill, and Pearson, in litigating claims of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and contributory trademark infringement against Shopify, an e-Commerce platform, for allegedly assisting and profiting from the sale of pirated copies of eBooks and related teaching and testing materials. The case settled after discovery but prior to trial. (Eastern District of Virginia)
  • Cengage v. Google
    We are representing Cengage, Macmillan Learning, Elsevier, and McGraw Hill in a copyright and trademark infringement action against Google for its advertising of unauthorized, infringing copies of the Plaintiffs’ textbooks and educational works. (Southern District of New York)
  • Sony Music v. Triller
    We successfully represented Sony Music in a copyright infringement and breach of contract action against Triller, a social media and music video app, for its unauthorized use of Sony Music’s copyrighted sound recordings. (Southern District of New York)
  • Concord v. X (Twitter)
    We are representing a group of major and independent music publishers in a copyright infringement litigation against X Corp. for its unauthorized use, including streaming, of musical compositions in videos on the Twitter platform. (Middle District of Tennessee)
  • UMG v. Kurbanov
    We successfully litigated copyright infringement and anti-circumvention claims against the owners and operators of two of the most popular “stream-ripping” services in the world, www.FLVTO.biz and www.2conv.com. On behalf of our clients Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music, we obtained terminating sanctions, injunctive relief, and an $83 million damages award. (Eastern District of Virginia)
  • Pearson v. Boundless Learning
    We successfully represented Pearson, Cengage, and Macmillan Learning in a copyright and trademark infringement case against an online business for developing and marketing versions of our clients’ leading products. The resolution included a judgment and injunctive relief with damages payments, destruction of offending items, and additional copyright and brand protection. (Southern District of New York)

We fiercely safeguard our clients’ physical and digital goods from counterfeit and online piracy operations.

  • Higher Education Publishers’ Anti-Counterfeiting Enforcement
    We successfully represented a group of the nation’s leading educational publishers (McGraw-Hill, Pearson, Cengage, Elsevier, and Macmillan Learning) in numerous litigation and non-litigation enforcement matters against commercial suppliers, importers, and sellers of counterfeits including in over a dozen federal district courts across the country. We also obtained widespread adoption of industry best practices against counterfeiting, see www.stopcounterfeitbooks.com, a best practices guide to avoid counterfeits that we developed with the support of major publishers.
  • Higher Education Publishers’ Online Anti-Piracy Enforcement
    We successfully represented a group of the nation’s leading educational publishers (McGraw-Hill, Pearson, Cengage, Elsevier, and Macmillan Learning) in numerous litigation and non-litigation enforcement matters against hundreds of pirate websites, storefronts, or other illicit online sellers. We have obtained judgments, settlements, TROs, injunctions, asset freezes, and seizures of domain names and financial accounts.
  • Cengage v. Book Dog Books
    We obtained a $34.2 million jury verdict, $5 million fee award, and permanent injunction for our clients Cengage, McGraw-Hill, Pearson, and Wiley against a U.S. commercial distributor for willful trademark and copyright infringement arising from the importation and sale of counterfeit books. (Southern District of New York)
  • Hachette v. Internet Archive
    We prevailed at summary judgment, and on appeal, on behalf of four major book publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley) in a copyright infringement litigation against Internet Archive over Internet Archive's mass scanning of print books and online distribution of the resulting digital copies. In a powerful opinion, the district court rejected Internet Archive’s attempt to justify its conduct, something Internet Archive called “controlled digital lending,” as fair use. (Southern District of New York; Second Circuit)
  • John Wiley & Sons v. Rivadeneyra
    We represented several leading educational publishers (Wiley, Cengage, Pearson, and McGraw-Hill) in successfully litigating claims of copyright infringement and fraud against an international network engaged in the purchase and sale of gray market and other goods. (District of New Jersey)
  • McGraw Hill v. Griffin
    We represented several of the nation’s leading educational publishers (Wiley, Cengage, Pearson, and McGraw-Hill) in litigating claims of copyright and trademark infringement over an elaborate scheme to sell unauthorized versions of the Plaintiffs’ textbooks. The Defendants obtained International Editions of Plaintiffs’ textbooks intended for overseas distribution in developing countries and, in their U.S.-based “chop shop,” removed the covers and copyrighted pages and replaced them with copies of U.S. Edition covers bearing Plaintiffs’ trademarks. We prevailed at the Sixth Circuit on an issue concerning attorneys’ fees. (Western District of Kentucky; Sixth Circuit)

  • AAP v. Frosh
    We obtained a preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment for the U.S. publishing industry against the Maryland Attorney General, preventing enforcement of a state-level compulsory license for copyrighted works. The court agreed with our argument that a state statute mandating that publishers license their literary works in digital format to public libraries, and under terms mandated by the state, is invalid, unconstitutional, and federally preempted. The ruling serves as a critical reminder that the nation’s copyright laws are a single federal system, within the exclusive domain of Congress rather than states. (District of Maryland)
  • Post Foods v. OK Go
    We represented the indie rock band OK GO in a declaratory judgment case brought by Post over Post’s use of the OK GO registered mark on a breakfast cereal product. (District of Minnesota)
  • Gastineau v. NFL
    We are representing the National Football League as a defendant in a case brought by former NFL player Mark Gastineau involving right of publicity. (Southern District of New York)
  • HTC v. Universal Music Enterprises
    We successfully represented Universal Music Group, as a third-party defendant, in litigation over the use of Nina Simone recordings in a major advertising campaign. (Southern District of New York)
  • Pearson v. Chegg
    We represented Pearson in a copyright infringement litigation against Chegg, a technology company that systematically prepared and sold answer sets to textbook questions. (District of New Jersey)
  • SoundExchange v. Sirius XM
    We are representing SoundExchange in an action against Sirius XM to recover royalties Sirius XM owes to artists and copyright owners for digitally performing sounding recordings under statutory licenses. (Southern District of New York)

  • Kadrey v. Meta Platforms
    We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishes (STM), in a case brought by book publishers against Meta for its unauthorized copying of copyrighted works to train its generative AI systems. We argued that Meta’s actions of illegally copying the protected materials from unlawful sources threaten the rights of authors and publishers, as well as undermine future investments in scholarly writings. (Northern District of California)
  • Nike v. Wu
    We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Association of American Publishers (“AAP”) in a trademark counterfeiting case where the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had declined to hold foreign banks in contempt for ignoring court orders concerning asset restraints. We argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should reverse the District Court’s decision to ensure that the asset freeze remedy remains effective. (Second Circuit)
  • In re 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter
    We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Copyright Alliance in a case involving a DMCA 512(h) subpoena, a mechanism under the DMCA to uncover the identity of an alleged infringer. Twitter, the defendant, moved to quash the subpoena on grounds of fair use, arguing that the infringer’s identity should be protected. Our amicus brief argued, among other things, that the burden of fair use is always on the accused infringer and that the subpoenaed platform cannot assert such defense on behalf of the alleged infringer who has not raised it. (Northern District of California)
  • BMG v. Cox
    We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) and National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) in a case involving mass scale copyright infringement by an internet access provider’s subscribers. We asserted that the panel erroneously held that a plaintiff must meet a heightened “willful blindness” standard in order to make a claim of contributory liability, and instead that constructive knowledge is sufficient to establish contributory copyright infringement. (Fourth Circuit)