Ian Crosby

Copyright, Artificial Intelligence, Technology, Patent

Ian Crosby is a leading authority on the law of artificial intelligence. He is the only lawyer named among “the nation’s most powerful people in artificial intelligence” in Business Insider’s “2024 AI Power List,” and one of Lawdragon’s inaugural “Top 100 Leading AI and Tech Advisors in America.” He has been interviewed and quoted about AI and copyright law by major national and international news organizations and is a frequent speaker on the subject at law schools and legal education seminars.

Crosby is listed among The Best Lawyers in America® by U.S News for Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation and recognized as a Super Lawyer® by Thomson Reuters.

Crosby has tried and litigated patent, copyright, antitrust, and other complex commercial cases in federal courts throughout the country. He has also represented parties before the U.S. International Trade Commission, in private arbitrations, and in confidential licensing negotiations. Ian serves as an Executive Committee member and Membership Chair of the Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of Court.

- Chegg, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No 1:25-cv-00543-APM (D.D.C. 2025) (lead counsel): Suit asserting that Google has unlawfully maintained and exploited its monopoly in general search services to appropriate educational publisher content supplied for search indexing to operate AI generated search result overviews and other non-search features.

- New York Times v. Microsoft & OpenAI, Case No. 1:23-cv-11195-SHS (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (lead counsel): Suit asserting that Microsoft and OpenAI infringed copyrights in millions of articles to train and run GPT artificial intelligence products.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 22-01861 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (lead counsel): Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of two patents asserted against client Zillow.

- Stross v. Zillow Inc., Case No. 22-3600 (9th Cir. 2024) (lead counsel), Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of copyright infringement claims against client Zillow and awarded attorneys’ fees on appeal.

- D., et al v. Chris Reykdal, et al, Case No. 23-35580 (9th Cir. 2024) (lead counsel—pro bono): Argued appeal resulting in entry of a preliminary injunction against the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Washington prohibiting disabled children from being aged out of special education placements before age twenty-two.

- Stross v. Zillow Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01489-RAJ-BAT (W.D. Wa. 2022) (lead counsel): Won motion to dismiss claims that client Zillow infringed 106 real estate photographs and obtained award of attorneys’ fees.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01130 (W.D. Wa. 2022) (lead counsel): Obtained dismissal of five of five asserted patents.

- International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00851(W.D. Wa. 2022) (lead counsel): Obtained dismissal of six of seven asserted patents and stay of seventh pending appeal of partial invalidation in IPR.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No. 21-02350 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (lead counsel): Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of two patents asserted against client Zillow.

- In re National Football League Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal. 2024): Presented damages expert at trial resulting in $4.7 billion jury verdict for client plaintiff class.

- VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01096-JLR (W.D. Wa. 2022) (lead counsel): Prevailed on affirmative defense of innocent infringement for 388 images and obtained finding of near-minimum statutory damages for 2,312 more in bench trial on damages on remand from Ninth Circuit.

- Kean v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, Case No. 20-2-16194-2 SEA (King Co. Super. Ct. 2021) (lead counsel): Obtained settlement following close of discovery of claims against client Seattle Children’s Hospital by researcher seeking royalty on pharmaceutical license payments.

- com LLC v. DDR Holdings LLC, IPR2018-00482 (P.T.A.B. 2018) (co-lead counsel): PTAB affirmed patentability of all challenged claims of client DDR Holdings’ e-commerce technology patent.

- Finjan Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-04790-HSG (N.D. Cal. 2017): Obtained settlement claims against client Bitdefender following completion of summary judgment briefing.

- AlmondNet v. Oath Holdings, Case No. 19-cv-00247 (D. Del. 2019) (co-lead counsel): Obtained settlement for patent owner client AlmondNet after defeating eight covered business method review petitions and obtaining transfer to District of Delaware in lieu of dismissal following Supreme Court’s intervening decision in TC Heartland.

- Uniloc U.S.A. v. Bitdefender LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00394-RWS (N.D. Cal. 2017): Complete summary judgment in favor of client Bitdefender LLC on grounds that asserted software distribution patents were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter.

- VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01096-JLR (W.D. Wa. 2017) (lead counsel): Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for client Zillow on over 95% of claims for infringement of copyrighted images and vacated award of damages for the remainder.

- In the Matter of Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-973 (I.T.C. 2016): Complaint against client Jawbone withdrawn after finding that asserted fitness tracking patents were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter.

- In Re Queen’s University at Kingston, No. 2015-145 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Grant of mandamus petition for client Queen’s University at Kingston established the application of the attorney-client privilege to prosecution related communications with registered patent agents.

- Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T et al., No. 2014-1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015): Affirmed $40 million judgment obtained at trial for client Two-Way Media LLC for infringement of streaming content delivery patents by AT&T.

- ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc. et al., No. 3:12-cv-00260-H (S.D. Cal. 2014): Vacated award of damages against client Space Systems/Loral for alleged infringement of satellite communications patents.

- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. 2013-1505 (Fed. Cir. 2014): Opinion affirming in part trial judgment obtained for client DDR Holdings was first, and, for eighteen months, only Federal Circuit decision to uphold the validity of a computer software patent on subject matter grounds after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

- Native American Marketing and Development Corp. v. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation et al., No. 8:07cv-02436 (D. Md. 2009): Complete summary judgment for client Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in a suit seeking a hundred-million dollar finder’s fee on the largest single-source government contract in history.

- Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (2004): Settlement of antitrust claims for client Novell in a confidential amount that the New York Times later reported to be $536 million.

Former Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert Boochever, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Former Law Clerk to the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington