Contract clarity and policy governance are critical to obtain efficient resolution of potential intellectual property disputes. A recently decided case exemplifies the need for universities to adopt clear and consistently enforced IP policies governing faculty-generated content. While courts are reluctant to extend copyright protection to generalized academic structures or concepts, the increasing monetization of online education raises the stakes for institutions and faculty.
This case illustrates the pitfalls of inadequate documentation around course creation, the challenges of protecting educational content, and the importance of addressing faculty ownership claims before they escalate into litigation.
More broadly, the litigation reflects unresolved tensions at the intersection of academic freedom, institutional control, and the digital marketplace. As online programs continue to expand, the governance of course IP will remain a high-risk zone for universities nationwide.
A recent federal copyright infringement lawsuit filed in the District of New Jersey sheds light on the increasingly contentious issue of intellectual property ownership in the higher education context. The case, brought by a tenured computer science professor against his longtime employer, a public research university (hereafter, the “institute”), highlights the growing commercial significance of faculty-created course materials—particularly in the age of online learning—and the challenges institutions face in managing those assets while respecting academic authorship rights.
The Complaint: A Claim of Unauthorized Copying and Commercial Exploitation
The lawsuit centers around a graduate-level machine learning course called CS 675, developed by the plaintiff (hereafter, the “professor”) in 2013. The professor alleges he created the course entirely on his own initiative, without compensation, directive, or the use of institutional resources. According to the complaint, the course proved highly successful, drawing significant enrollment and forming the foundation for a new Master of Data Science program and the institute's Data Science department.
In spring 2020, the professor finalized and published his course materials, including lecture slides, assignments, notes, and exams, which he registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in May 2024. These materials, he claims, represent a creative compilation entitled to protection under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103, based on the unique selection, coordination, and arrangement of pedagogical content.
The professor alleges that while he was on extended medical leave from 2021 to 2023, the institute created an online version of his course, DS 675, without his knowledge or consent. He discovered in 2024 that another faculty member had been credited as the course developer and that the institute had registered its own copyright in the online course and offered it through its online education platform. The complaint includes a detailed side-by-side comparison of the original and online courses, asserting over 90% topic overlap and nearly identical module sequencing, slide content, and even exam problems.
Asserting copyright infringement, the professor seeks $100 million in damages, including lost licensing fees, unjust enrichment, and a 50% royalty for each future student enrolled in the online course.
The Institute's Motion to Dismiss: Challenges to Validity and Protectability
The institute responded with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, raising multiple grounds. First, it argued the professor's copyright registration was invalid, asserting that the professor made fraudulent representations to the Copyright Office by claiming authorship over materials that either were not original or were developed using institutional resources.
Second, the institute asserted that the claims were time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations, pointing to internal emails from 2020 in which the professor raised concerns about others using his course content.
Substantively, the institute contended that the professor failed to state a plausible infringement claim. It argued that the allegedly copied material—a syllabus, course topics, and standard machine learning content—comprised unprotectable facts, ideas, and academic conventions, and that any overlap was either coincidental, fair use, or a result of independent development. The institute further invoked the merger doctrine, asserting that certain methods of expressing machine learning concepts are so constrained that expression and idea merge, removing copyright protection.
Finally, the institute challenged the availability of punitive damages and dismissed claims of criminal infringement as unsupported.
The Professor's Opposition: Emphasizing Original Compilation and Market Harm
The professor filed a comprehensive response, refuting each basis for dismissal. He reiterated that his registered work was the spring 2020 version of the course, with demonstrably original selection and arrangement of course content. He argued that his registration of a compilation is consistent with settled law, including the Supreme Court's decision in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., and that the copied elements were not merely facts or concepts, but his unique expression of those ideas.
On the statute of limitations, the professor referenced the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, asserting that the discovery rule controls and that he first learned of the infringing online course in 2024.
He also presented comparative evidence showing that the online course overlapped with his material to a far greater extent than it did with similar courses at peer institutions. He claimed that the institute monetized his course without attribution, while barring him from teaching or licensing it.
The Court's Decision: Dismissal With Prejudice
The district court granted the institute's motion to dismiss in a detailed written opinion. While the court credited the professor's factual narrative and acknowledged his pro se status, it concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege actionable infringement.
First, the court held that the professor failed to plead substantial similarity in protectable expression. It emphasized that educational content often includes unprotectable elements and that the complaint relied heavily on shared structure, topic names, and pedagogical sequencing—none of which, standing alone, are necessarily protected.
Second, the court found the damages claim speculative and unsupported by specific allegations of actual market harm or causal connection to the institute's actions.
Finally, although the court acknowledged potential ambiguity regarding the discovery date, it did not find sufficient factual development to toll the statute of limitations.
Most importantly, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning the professor is barred from refiling the same claims.
The case is Roshan v. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Case #:2:24-cv-10933-BRM (D. N.J. 2024)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
