OpenEvidence Inc v Doximity Inc
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
OpenEvidence Inc. v. Doximity, Inc. concerned alleged unauthorized access to OpenEvidence’s medical AI system and counterclaims over allegedly misleading commercial statements. The District of Massachusetts allowed several claims on both sides to proceed past the pleading stage in January 2026. The parties later settled and filed an October 16 stipulation voluntarily dismissing the entire action with prejudice.[4][2][3]
Access and contract claims
The January 22 order addressed OpenEvidence’s amended complaint. For its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim, OpenEvidence alleged that defendants used false information to obtain access to non-public areas of its system and incurred more than $5,000 in response, restoration and security costs. The court found those allegations sufficient at that stage. It expressly left open whether OpenEvidence could substantiate losses attributable to the alleged technological offense.[4]
The individual defendants argued that the terms of service were unenforceable browsewrap. The court distinguished public access from the non-public access at issue: the amended complaint alleged that users had to affirmatively click agreement to linked policies before entering the non-public system. It also permitted unjust-enrichment pleading in the alternative because defendants disputed whether a valid contract existed. The court dismissed trespass-to-chattels claims because the complaint did not plausibly allege dispossession or that consumption of computing resources damaged or overly burdened the system. These were pleading-stage determinations, not findings that unauthorized access or contractual breaches had occurred.[4]
Counterclaims
In a separate January 22 order, the court allowed Doximity’s Lanham Act, defamation and Chapter 93A claims to proceed. Doximity alleged deceptive statements concerning its performance and OpenEvidence’s users and AI capabilities, among other statements. The court treated arguments about truth, context, puffery and attribution as factual disputes premature for dismissal. It also deferred the Massachusetts nexus question pending factual development. Pathway’s Lanham Act and Chapter 93A claims were dismissed for insufficient allegations of actionable misconduct directed at Pathway. The order did not determine that Doximity’s allegations were true.[2]
October 2026 settlement and dismissal
On October 15, the parties jointly notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were finalizing a written agreement. They expected dismissal of the whole action with prejudice and requested a stay of deadlines through midnight October 16. The notice did not disclose the agreement’s substantive terms.[5]
On October 16, all parties, through counsel, filed a stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). It stated that the action, including all claims and counterclaims, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The document is a signed parties’ stipulation, rather than a judicial decision adjudicating the underlying allegations. It does not disclose a settlement payment or establish liability.[3]
Related coverage
- October 19, 2026 news archive — reporting on the settlement and dismissal.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 D. Mass., OpenEvidence Inc. v. Doximity, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-11802-RGS, public docket, reviewed October 19, 2026; filed June 20, 2025; assigned to Richard G. Stearns.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 D. Mass., electronic order, ECF 87, January 22, 2026 (complete order text reproduced in docket entry).
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 D. Mass., ECF 162, stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, October 16, 2026, pp. 1–3.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 D. Mass., electronic order, ECF 86, January 22, 2026 (complete order text reproduced in docket entry).
- ↑ D. Mass., ECF 161, joint notice of settlement and motion to stay all deadlines, October 15, 2026, pp. 1–3.