Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Through the ADventures in Law Blog, BakerHostetler’s Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team provides updates and analysis on legal issues and trends in the advertising and marketing industry.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.adventures-in-law.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ADventures in Law Blog</a> site for more and to subscribe!

ADventures in Law

The Antitrust Advocate blog provides insights and commentary surrounding complex antitrust litigation and trade regulation. It’s presented by members of BakerHostetler’s Antitrust and Competition Team.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.antitrustadvocate.com/">Antitrust Advocate</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Antitrust Advocate

BakerHostetler’s Blockchain Monitor is a weekly blog curated and written by members of our Web3 and Digital Assets team. Published every Monday, the blog is dedicated to providing our clients, friends and industry contacts with a concise weekly update of key developments in the fast-paced blockchain industry. By subscribing below you will receive the blog in your email inbox every Monday afternoon.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.theblockchainmonitor.com/">Blockchain Monitor</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Blockchain Monitor

Commentary addressing risks and opportunities through the life cycle of data, technology, advertising and innovation.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.bakerdatacounsel.com/">Data Counsel</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Data Counsel

The Discovery Advocate blog is presented by members of BakerHostetler’s E-Discovery Advocacy and Management Team (EDAM).  Today’s modern discovery practice requires a practical approach backed by specialized expertise; Discovery Advocate examines the developments and trends that impact today’s litigants in the trenches of litigation and beyond.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.discoveryadvocate.com/">Discovery Advocate</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Discovery Advocate

The Employment Law Spotlight blog is written by attorneys of our national Labor and Employment Group, with an eye toward helping employers avoid litigation.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.employmentlawspotlight.com/">Employment Law Spotlight</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Employment Law Spotlight

BakerHostetler is at the forefront of national law firms providing clients involved in every facet of healthcare delivery across the country with comprehensive legal counsel of remarkable responsiveness, creativity, quality and value.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.healthlawupdate.com/">Health Law Update</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Health Law Update

In today’s global economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, domain names and other intellectual property (IP) are among the most valuable assets of market leaders and rising businesses.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/">IP Intelligence Report</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

IP Intelligence Report

Updates from Capitol Hill.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.ohioclock.com/">Ohio Clock</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

Ohio Clock

The Bargaining Table blog is written by attorneys of BakerHostetler’s Labor Relations team, with an eye toward helping employers manage their unionized workforces.

Please visit our <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/">Bargaining Table</a> blog site for more and to subscribe!

The Bargaining Table

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

2025 BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective

2025 DSIR Report Deeper Dive

32nd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

33rd Annual Legislative Seminar Series

Join us for AD Nauseam, an AdLaw podcast series featuring Amy Mudge and Daniel Kaufman, partners from our Advertising, Marketing, and Digital Media team. Together, they have decades of advertising experience and share their insights on trending legal issues in the advertising space, with an emphasis on the FTC and NAD developments.

AD Nauseam

AD-ttorneys@law

The use of noncompetes is now shifting across the country. Many states are limiting the use of noncompetes. Several states have enacted or are considering prohibitions on noncompetes. Nationally, the Federal Trade Commission is engaging in a rulemaking that could ban noncompete agreements between employers and employees. What does all of this mean for your business? Are there alternatives to noncompetes that can protect your business?

To help bring all this into focus, we’ve created a three-part series called “Alternatives to Noncompetes.”

Alternatives to Noncompetes

BakerHostetler Blockchain University

BakerHosts

BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective - 2024

Celebrating Black Voices at BakerHostetler

Since the recent Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, companies have been impacted nationwide and have several new legal angles to consider as it relates to their employees and their businesses. With that in mind, we’ve created a new podcast series, Dobbs on Demand, designed to help you navigate this new and evolving landscape.

Dobbs on Demand

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2022

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2023

DSIR Report Deeper Dive - 2024

Estate and Tax Planning for Globally Mobile Clients

MDLephant: What's Big in MDL Litigation?

Promoting the Progress of Science

Rev Up!

Technology from the Top: AI, Data and the Future of Business with Today’s CIOs

The Cloakroom podcast series brings you inside Capitol Hill with insightful interviews and discussions with leading lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate. Hosted by former Congressman Peter Roskam, who leads BakerHostetler’s Federal Policy team, you’ll hear firsthand about the latest policy debates on taxes, healthcare, energy, financial services and more.
Subscribe to The Cloakroom
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam-bakerhosts/id1759425935" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apple Podcast</a> | <a href="https://www.amazon.com/music/player/podcasts/bdb139af-518d-469a-998b-ea9b49fafd93/the-cloakroom-with-peter-roskam---bakerhosts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon Music</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7LfpZdBC0OA2jyVjgVXNFF?si=de8f473382704494" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Spotify</a>

The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam

The Data Economy and You

The Data Stream

The Emerging New Era for Noncompetes and Trade Secrets

The Now and Next in International Trade

The State Tax Show

Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions

core/button

core/buttons

core/heading

Rupert Murdoch’s Dow Jones and New York Post sued Perplexity AI for its use of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted news content in Perplexity AI’s RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) solution.

core/paragraph

The court denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer venue, so the case will proceed to trial. Fact discovery is due by June 4, 2026. Expert discovery is due September 2, 2026. Depositions are due by June 4, 2026. This case is to be tried to a jury, and the next pretrial conference will be held on July 14, 2026.

Case Background

Dow Jones &amp; Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., 1:24-cv-07984

Court:&nbsp;Southern District of New York

Judges:&nbsp;Judge Katherine Polk Failla

Plaintiffs – Dow Jones &amp; Company, Inc. and NYP Holdings, Inc., represented by Torridon Law PLLC Defendant – Perplexity AI, Inc., represented by Farella Braun &amp; Martel LLP

contentpilot/accordion

Status Updates

Aug. 21, 2025 – Court denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer venue

The court denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint or, in the alternative, transfer the action to the Northern District of California in full. The court denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss the claims relating to the additional 10 “untimely registered works,” citing Neu Productions Inc. v. Outside Interactive, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 4125 (LAK) (GWG), 2024 WL 1161498, at *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23 Civ. 4125 (LAK), 2024 WL 2992351 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2024). Precedent states that “where the practical effect of dismissal would be to cause plaintiffs to file a case against the same defendant that raised the same claims as to the new registrations[,]” leave to amend should be granted. The court applied that logic to plaintiffs’ case, noting that 326 of plaintiffs’ copyrights were properly registered at the time the initial complaint was filed, and the additional 10 new copyrights were filed timely as to the second amended complaint, such that relevant claims should not be dismiss.

As to the motion to transfer, the court held that it has personal jurisdiction over Perplexity under New York’s long-arm statute—Perplexity clearly transacts business in New York, and the alleged copying of plaintiffs’ copyrighted materials is sufficiently connected to Perplexity’s contacts with New York. The court also concluded that venue is proper, such that transfer to N.D.Cal. would be inappropriate.

Feb. 18 – Mar. 25, 2025 – Perplexity filed motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer venue

On February 18, Perplexity filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. Perplexity moved to dismiss based on a lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, although it stated that “[a] full record will show that Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits.

Perplexity stated that it and plaintiffs share the same goal—ensuring people have ready access to reliable information, and that they prioritize collaborating with publishers like plaintiffs to share resources and ideas about the responsible development of AI-enhanced search technology. Perplexity argued that its search product “relies on publicly available factual information that is not protected by copyright law.” Perplexity stated that it was eager to correct the record and engage with plaintiffs on a potential partnership when plaintiffs first expressed concerns about how it obtained training data, but plaintiffs ignored the outreach and filed this lawsuit in New York. Perplexity argued that New York unfairly advantages plaintiffs, as Perplexity developed and maintained its search product in California and thus the conduct underpinning the complaint takes place in California.

On March 11, 2025, plaintiffs responded in opposition to Perplexity’s motion. Regarding Perplexity’s argument to transfer venue, Plaintiffs argued that Perplexity plainly “transacts business” in New York with New York customers through its actions of marketing and operating its generative AI products and sale of infringing “answers” through its website and mobile application.&nbsp; Plaintiffs characterized Perplexity’s arguments to transfer as “sleights of hand” and stated that Perplexity’s defense that its infringing “goods” are primarily produced elsewhere “is simply not part of the relevant analysis.” Regarding Perplexity’s request to dismiss from the action ten copyright registrations, plaintiffs argued that the prevailing case law requires copyright registrations to be perfected before a plaintiff ever asserts violations based on such registrations, not before a plaintiff files a related complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;

On March 25, 2025, Perplexity replied in support of its motion to dismiss, stating that the court should reject plaintiffs’ misguided attempt to retain home-field advantage and transfer the case to Northern District of California. Regarding Perplexity’s request to dismiss claims as to ten copyright registrations, Perplexity cites Lee v. Black Ent’mt Television, LLC, 2020 WL 1140795, (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020), which states that permitting amendment to allege later registrations would make a meaningless formality out of the requirement that an application be approved prior to filing suit since then, a plaintiff could file suit at any time and simply update the complaint when registration finally occurred.

Feb. 18, 2025 – Perplexity filed request for judicial notice ISO motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer venue

Perplexity concurrently filed a request for judicial notice of the official copyright registrations held by plaintiffs and Perplexity’s current terms of service in support of its motion to dismiss.

Jan. 28, 2025 – Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to update Perplexity AI’s information. Plaintiffs did not edit their causes of action.

Dec. 11, 2024 – Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint

Plaintiffs amended their complaint to update Perplexity AI’s information. Plaintiffs did not edit their causes of action.

Oct. 21, 2024 – Dow Jones and New York Post filed complaint against Perplexity AI

News publishers filed a complaint against Perplexity AI, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Perplexity AI infringed its copyrights by copying plaintiffs’ webpages and stored copies of that content in a retrieval-augmented generation (“RAG”) database accessed by Perplexity AI’s “answer engine.” The outputs of the answer engine “often include full or partial verbatim reproductions of Plaintiffs’ news, analysis, and opinion articles.” Plaintiffs alleged that Perplexity AI’s copying, at the input stage, and reproducing, at the output stage, constitute separate acts of infringement. Plaintiffs also targeted Perplexity AI’s premium service, “Perplexity Pro,” which offers users access to “verbatim reproductions” of plaintiffs’ content.

The complaint alleges three causes of action:

core/list

Select Court Documents

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-1-Complaint-Dow-Jones.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Oct. 21, 2024 – ECF 1 Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-36-First-Amended-Complaint-Dow-Jones.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dec. 11, 2024 – ECF 36 First Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ECF-46-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jan. 28, 2025 – ECF 46 Second Amended Complaint</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/47-48-MTD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 18, 2025 – ECF 47, 48 Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ECF-51-Request-for-Judicial-Notice.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Feb. 18, 2025 – ECF 51 Request for Judicial Notice</a>

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ECF-54-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 11, 2025 – ECF 54 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ECF-56-Reply-ISO-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Mar. 25, 2025 – ECF 56 Reply ISO Motion to Dismiss</a>&nbsp;

<a href="https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ECF-65-Order-Denying-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Aug. 21, 2025 – ECF 65 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss</a>