What Should You Do When You Receive a Cease and Desist Letter?
Receiving a cease and desist letter alleging IP infringement can be alarming, particularly for AI companies facing claims about training data, model architectures, or system outputs. These letters demand that recipients stop allegedly infringing activities, sometimes seeking damages or licensing fees.
Whether the claims involve copyright infringement over training data, patent infringement of AI methods, trademark violations in branding, or trade secret misappropriation of algorithms, responding strategically is critical. Hasty responses can waive defenses, create admissions, or escalate disputes unnecessarily, while ignoring legitimate claims invites litigation.
Understanding how to evaluate cease and desist letters, when to engage counsel, and what response strategies protect your interests helps companies navigate IP disputes effectively.
Initial Steps Upon Receipt
Don’t Panic or Ignore
Cease and desist letters are common in business and don’t necessarily mean litigation is imminent or claims have merit. However, ignoring them can lead to lawsuits, preliminary injunctions, or damage to business relationships.
Take letters seriously without assuming immediate crisis.
Preserve Documents and Evidence
Implement litigation holds preserving relevant materials including source code and technical documentation, training data and model files, communications about disputed technology, and contracts or licenses that may be relevant.
Evidence preservation is crucial whether you ultimately litigate or settle.
Engage Legal Counsel Promptly
Consult IP counsel experienced with AI technology before responding. Attorneys provide privilege protection for communications, assess claim strength objectively, develop response strategies, and negotiate on your behalf.
Don’t communicate directly with claimants without counsel guidance.
Analyzing the Claims
Identify Specific Allegations
Determine exactly what the claimant alleges including which IP rights are allegedly infringed (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret), what specific technologies or activities are accused, what relief is demanded (cease use, damages, licensing), and what deadlines apply for response.
Vague or overbroad letters may indicate weak claims.
Evaluate Copyright Claims
For copyright allegations over training data or AI outputs, assess whether works are actually copyrighted, whether you actually copied or had access to them, whether fair use defenses apply, and whether outputs are substantially similar to protected works.
Many AI copyright claims face significant fair use defenses.
Evaluate Patent Claims
Patent cease and desist letters should identify specific patents and claim numbers allegedly infringed. Analyze whether patents are valid or subject to invalidity challenges, whether your systems actually practice claimed inventions, and whether you have non-infringement positions.
Patent validity and infringement are complex technical and legal questions requiring expert analysis.
Evaluate Trade Secret Claims
Trade secret allegations often arise from employee departures. Consider whether information qualifies as protectable trade secrets, whether misappropriation actually occurred, and whether you independently developed similar technology.
Assess Trademark Claims
Trademark disputes involve brand confusion claims. Evaluate whether marks are similar, whether use creates likelihood of confusion, and whether fair use defenses apply for descriptive or nominative use.
Investigating Internal Facts
Technical Investigation
Determine the factual basis for claims by reviewing development histories, source code repositories, training data sources and provenance, and technical architectures and implementations.
Interview Key Personnel
Speak with developers, data scientists, and others involved in disputed technology about how systems were developed, what resources were used, and whether any third-party materials were incorporated.
Review Contracts and Licenses
Examine relevant agreements including open source licenses for incorporated code, data licenses or terms of service for training data, employment or contractor agreements addressing IP ownership, and customer or partner agreements creating obligations.
Response Strategy Options
When to Ignore or Minimally Respond
Some letters don’t warrant substantive responses including clearly frivolous claims with no factual or legal basis, fishing expeditions seeking information without specific allegations, or letters from parties with no apparent standing.
Counsel can advise when minimal engagement is appropriate.
Responding with Defenses
For claims with some merit but strong defenses, responses may assert non-infringement positions, fair use or other affirmative defenses, invalidity arguments for patents, or statute of limitations issues.
Well-crafted responses can deter litigation by demonstrating strong defenses.
Seeking Negotiated Resolution
When claims have merit or litigation risks are high, consider negotiating including licensing discussions, settlement talks, covenant not to sue agreements, or business arrangements resolving disputes.
Making Design-Arounds or Modifications
If infringement is likely and claims are valid, consider modifying technology to avoid infringement by replacing disputed components, removing infringing features, or implementing design-arounds.
Design changes should be evaluated with counsel to ensure they eliminate infringement.
Drafting the Response
What to Include
Effective responses acknowledge receipt of the letter, request additional information if allegations are vague, assert preliminary positions on legal or factual issues, and propose paths forward (licensing discussions, technical meetings, etc.).
What to Avoid
Don’t admit infringement or wrongdoing, provide detailed technical information that could aid claimants, make threats or inflammatory statements, or commit to deadlines you can’t meet.
Responses should be professional and measured.
Attorney Privilege
Mark responses as privileged attorney communications to protect from disclosure in litigation. Route all communications through counsel.
Timing Considerations
Responding to Deadlines
Cease and desist letters often impose response deadlines. While these aren’t legally binding, ignoring them may prompt litigation.
If you need more time, request reasonable extensions explaining you’re evaluating claims.
Preliminary Injunction Risk
If claimants threaten immediate court action seeking preliminary injunctions, faster response may be necessary. Preliminary injunctions can force immediate cessation of business activities pending trial.
Declaratory Judgment Actions
When to File First
Recipients of cease and desist letters can sometimes file declaratory judgment actions seeking court declarations of non-infringement or invalidity. This offensive strategy allows choosing favorable venues and taking initiative.
Declaratory judgment actions require actual controversy and strategic value.
Insurance Coverage Issues
Notifying Insurers
Cease and desist letters may trigger obligations to notify insurance carriers under IP defense, E&O, or cyber liability policies. Notify promptly to preserve coverage.
Coverage Disputes
Insurers may dispute coverage. Work with counsel to enforce coverage rights if insurers deny or delay.
Business Considerations
Customer and Partner Notification
Decide whether to inform customers or partners about IP disputes. Transparency builds trust but may create concerns. Balance honesty with avoiding unnecessary alarm.
Indemnification Obligations
If customer contracts include IP indemnification, cease and desist letters may trigger notification or defense obligations. Review contracts and comply with indemnification procedures.
Impact on Fundraising or M&A
Pending IP disputes affect fundraising and M&A. Disclose material disputes to investors or acquirers and develop resolution plans demonstrating competent management.
Common Cease and Desist Scenarios for AI
Training Data Copyright Claims
Content creators send cease and desist letters alleging AI training on copyrighted works without authorization. These claims are subject to fair use defenses but require careful analysis.
Output Similarity Claims
Rights holders may allege AI outputs infringe copyrights through substantial similarity. Evaluate whether outputs actually copy protected expression.
Patent Troll Demands
Non-practicing entities often send vague patent demands seeking licensing fees. Evaluate patent validity and infringement critically before paying.
Competitor Trade Secret Allegations
Competitors may allege former employees brought trade secrets. Document independent development and implement clean room procedures if necessary.
When Litigation Becomes Necessary
If disputes can’t be resolved through negotiation, litigation may be unavoidable. Prepare by developing comprehensive legal strategies, assembling expert witnesses, and budgeting for litigation costs and potential damages.
Early case assessment helps decide whether to settle or fight.
Conclusion: Strategic Response Protects Interests
Cease and desist letters require measured, strategic responses balancing legal risks with business realities. Effective approaches preserve evidence and engage counsel early, evaluate claims objectively, consider all response options, and communicate professionally while protecting legal positions.
Companies that respond strategically to IP disputes minimize litigation risks while maintaining business momentum.
Contact Rock LAW PLLC for Cease and Desist Response
At Rock LAW PLLC, we help AI companies respond to IP infringement allegations and cease and desist letters.
We assist with:
- Cease and desist letter analysis and response
- Claim merit evaluation
- Licensing and settlement negotiation
- Defense strategy development
- Declaratory judgment actions
- IP litigation representation
Contact us for strategic counsel when facing IP infringement allegations.
Related Articles:
Rock LAW PLLC
Business Focused. Intellectual Property Driven.
www.rock.law/