What Should You Do When You Receive an IP Infringement Demand Letter?
Receiving a cease and desist letter alleging that your AI technology, software product, or business operations infringe someone else’s intellectual property rights can be alarming. Whether the letter claims your AI model violates copyright, your product name infringes a trademark, or your technology uses patented methods without authorization, your response can significantly impact the outcome and potential legal costs.
AI companies face increasing IP disputes as the technology matures. Claims may allege that training data violates copyright, AI-generated outputs infringe third-party works, product names confuse consumers with existing trademarks, or machine learning implementations infringe software patents. Companies developing or deploying AI technologies using platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or custom models must understand how to evaluate and respond to IP claims strategically.
The stakes are substantial. Improper responses can waive important legal defenses, create admissions used against you in litigation, escalate disputes that could have been resolved quietly, or result in costly emergency injunctions. Conversely, strategic responses can resolve disputes favorably, preserve business operations, minimize legal costs, and protect valuable IP rights.
Understanding Different Types of IP Cease and Desist Letters
Copyright Infringement Claims
Copyright cease and desist letters typically allege that you’ve copied, distributed, or created derivative works from copyrighted material without authorization. For AI companies, common allegations include:
Training Data Claims: Allegations that AI models were trained on copyrighted books, articles, images, or code without permission.
Output Infringement: Claims that AI-generated content reproduces or derives from copyrighted works.
Software Code Copying: Allegations that your software incorporates copyrighted code, particularly relevant for AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot.
Copyright claims may demand immediate cessation of infringing activities, destruction of infringing materials, payment of damages and profits, and permanent licensing agreements.
Trademark Infringement Demands
Trademark letters allege that your use of names, logos, or branding creates likelihood of consumer confusion with the sender’s marks. Common scenarios include:
Product Names: Claims that your AI product name is confusingly similar to an existing trademark.
Domain Names: Allegations that your website domain infringes trademarks or constitutes cybersquatting.
Marketing Materials: Claims that your advertising uses competitors’ trademarks improperly.
Trademark demands typically seek cessation of trademark use, transfer of domain names, destruction of branded materials, and accounting of profits from alleged infringement.
Patent Infringement Assertions
Patent letters claim your technology practices inventions covered by the sender’s patents without license. For AI technologies, allegations might involve:
Algorithm Patents: Claims that machine learning methods or AI architectures infringe patented techniques.
Implementation Patents: Allegations that how you deploy or use AI systems infringes process or system patents.
Application-Specific Patents: Claims involving AI applications in specific domains like computer vision, natural language processing, or autonomous systems.
Patent demands often request licensing negotiations, royalty payments, or cessation of infringing products or services.
Critical First Steps When You Receive a Demand Letter
Don’t Ignore It
Ignoring cease and desist letters creates serious risks. Failure to respond can be interpreted as admission of infringement or lack of good faith, lead to immediate litigation without settlement opportunity, result in temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, and establish willful infringement supporting enhanced damages.
Even if you believe claims are meritless, respond appropriately and timely.
Preserve All Relevant Evidence
Immediately implement litigation hold procedures to preserve documents, communications, source code, training data, development records, and any materials relevant to the allegations. Spoliation of evidence can result in severe sanctions and adverse inferences.
Document everything related to your challenged activities including when and how you developed the technology, what sources or materials you used, independent creation evidence, and dates of first use for trademark claims.
Engage Experienced IP Counsel Immediately
Do not respond to cease and desist letters without consulting intellectual property attorneys. Anything you say or write can be used against you in litigation. Common mistakes include admitting facts that support infringement claims, making commitments you can’t fulfill, waiving important legal defenses, or disclosing confidential business information unnecessarily.
Experienced counsel can evaluate claim merits, identify defenses, develop response strategy, and negotiate favorable resolutions while protecting your rights.
Evaluating the Strength of IP Claims Against You
Assessing Copyright Claims
Your attorney will evaluate several factors:
Validity of Copyright: Is the claimed work actually copyrightable? Confirm registration status and ownership chain.
Access and Copying: Did you actually copy the work, or was your creation independent? For AI training, did you have access to copyrighted works?
Substantial Similarity: Are the works substantially similar in protected expression, or are similarities limited to unprotectable ideas, facts, or scènes à faire?
Fair Use Defense: Could your use qualify as fair use? Consider whether use was transformative, commercial versus educational, amount copied, and market impact.
For AI training data claims, fair use arguments about transformative learning may apply, though this area remains legally unsettled.
Evaluating Trademark Claims
Key considerations include:
Trademark Rights: Does the sender have valid trademark rights through registration or common law use? Verify USPTO records and actual use in commerce.
Likelihood of Confusion: Would consumers likely confuse the marks? Courts consider mark similarity, goods/services relatedness, channels of trade, consumer sophistication, and actual confusion evidence.
Defenses: Potential defenses include fair use (descriptive or nominative use), first use if you used the mark before the claimant, geographic limitations, or fraud in obtaining registration.
Analyzing Patent Infringement Allegations
Patent evaluation requires technical and legal analysis:
Claim Construction: What do the patent claims actually cover? Patent language can be ambiguous and requires interpretation.
Infringement Analysis: Does your technology practice every element of at least one patent claim? Missing even one element means no literal infringement.
Invalidity Defenses: Could the patent be invalid due to prior art, obviousness, lack of enablement, or other grounds?
Non-Infringement Arguments: Can you design around the patent or show your technology differs materially?
Strategic Response Options
Immediate Cessation
If infringement is clear and damages would be substantial, immediate compliance may be prudent. This might involve changing product names, removing infringing content, ceasing use of patented technology, or implementing licensing agreements.
Consider this when infringement is obvious and indefensible, continuing creates escalating liability, or business impact of cessation is manageable compared to litigation costs.
Negotiated Settlement
Many disputes resolve through negotiation without litigation. Settlement options include licensing agreements, coexistence agreements defining acceptable uses, delayed compliance allowing transition time, or financial settlements.
Settlement benefits include avoiding litigation costs, maintaining confidentiality, preserving business relationships, and controlling outcomes rather than risking adverse judgments.
Formal Rejection with Legal Analysis
When claims lack merit, a detailed response letter may resolve the dispute. Effective responses explain why no infringement exists, cite relevant law and precedent, identify weaknesses in the claim, and preserve all legal defenses.
Strong rejection letters can deter litigation, establish good faith efforts to resolve disputes, and document your legal position for any subsequent litigation.
Silent Continuation with Defensive Preparation
In some cases, particularly when claims are questionable and the sender’s commitment to litigation is uncertain, companies may choose not to respond while preparing defenses. This approach requires careful legal guidance and readiness to defend litigation if filed.
Special Considerations for AI Companies
Training Data Documentation
For copyright claims related to AI training, document your data sources, licenses or permissions obtained, fair use analysis, and technical processes showing transformative use rather than reproduction.
Strong documentation supports fair use defenses and demonstrates good faith efforts to respect IP rights.
AI Output Liability
When claims involve AI-generated outputs allegedly infringing third-party works, evaluate whether outputs reproduce copyrighted expression, whether human involvement in creation affects liability, your service terms disclaiming liability for user-generated content, and monitoring systems detecting potential infringement.
Emerging Legal Standards
AI IP law remains evolving. Courts are actively developing standards for AI training fair use, liability for AI-generated content, and applicability of traditional IP doctrines to AI technologies. Your response strategy should account for legal uncertainty and potential to influence developing precedent.
What to Include in Your Response Letter
Effective response letters typically include acknowledgment of receipt without admitting allegations, factual corrections addressing mischaracterizations, legal analysis explaining why claims lack merit, good faith demonstration showing reasonable basis for your position, and clear next steps proposing resolution paths or setting expectations.
What not to include: admissions of infringement or wrongdoing, confidential technical or business information, emotional or inflammatory language, threats unless prepared to follow through, or settlement offers without strategic purpose.
Conclusion: Protecting Your AI Business When IP Claims Arise
Receiving cease and desist letters is increasingly common for AI companies operating in a rapidly evolving legal landscape. Whether claims involve copyright in training data, trademark disputes over product names, or patent infringement allegations, your response requires careful legal strategy balancing business objectives with legal risks.
The key is engaging experienced IP counsel immediately, thoroughly evaluating claim merits and available defenses, preserving all relevant evidence, and responding strategically to protect your interests while keeping resolution options open.
Contact Rock LAW PLLC for IP Dispute Response and Defense
At Rock LAW PLLC, we represent AI companies and technology businesses responding to intellectual property claims. Our attorneys combine deep IP expertise with understanding of AI technologies to provide strategic counsel that protects your business interests.
We assist clients with:
- Cease and desist letter evaluation and response
- Copyright, trademark, and patent infringement defense
- IP dispute negotiation and settlement
- Litigation defense in federal and state courts
- Fair use and other IP defense strategies
- Risk assessment and mitigation planning
If you’ve received an IP infringement claim, contact us immediately for confidential consultation and strategic guidance.
Related Articles:
- Who Owns AI-Generated Content?
- Software Licensing Agreements and AI-Generated Code
- Litigation Services
Rock LAW PLLC
Business Focused. Intellectual Property Driven.
www.rock.law/