Bobby Ghajar

Los Angeles
Bobby Ghajar is an intellectual property trial attorney with more than 25 years of experience and, more recently, the cutting-edge field of artificial intelligence copyright litigation.
His work in AI began in early 2023 after he learned of ChatGPT on a podcast just a few months earlier.
"I was excited to use it. It was groundbreaking, to say the least. I knew it was a radical shift in technology, not unlike the dot com boom or the migration to mobile, but it felt even more significant," Ghajar said. "I teamed with a close colleague at Cooley to learn as much about the technology (and the lingo) as I could. From scratch, we created a presentation to educate people regarding the technology, its application, and a myriad of potential IP-related legal issues presented by AI. New work compounded."
Ghajar continued: "Using the technology, experimenting with various AI tools, reading articles, and listening to technical podcasts. I consumed everything I could relating to AI."
His expertise was instrumental in defending Meta in a landmark case, Kadrey v. Meta, which addressed generative AI training. His ability to clarify the broad and confusing complaint to the court, and ensure the court's understanding of the inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' arguments, was a testament to his legal acumen.
Recently, Ghajar defended Meta in a groundbreaking case challenging generative AI training. The complaint against his client was broad and confusing, and his challenge was to explain to the Court why it needed to be trimmed.
"We did that, and at the hearing, it was apparent that the court had studied the papers and understood the inconsistencies in many of the plaintiffs' arguments," Ghajar said. "When we prevailed, that established a blueprint of sorts for others defending similar cases, and we noticed that the plaintiffs began to cut back on the asserted claims in other cases to fall in line with the ruling in our case."
He noted there are challenges and opportunities that come when one's case is the "first" to be heard.
"The court in our case scheduled the hearing on the motion to dismiss so that it was the first of its kind where the creator of an LLM had the opportunity to argue why the DMCA claims, derivative liability theory, vicarious liability, unfair competition, and negligence claims should be dismissed," Ghajar said. "Because plaintiffs had not defended those claims in prior hearings, we did not have the benefit of reading or listening to prior oral arguments."
Looking ahead, Ghajar anticipates an increase in AI-related litigation, encompassing disputes over AI-created works, the adoption of AI by intermediaries, and challenges to the use of voice or images that implicate the right of publicity. He also foresees potential legislation aimed at addressing these evolving legal landscapes. Ghajar's insights and experiences position him as a leading authority in the realm of AI and IP law.