ROSHAN v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
2:24-cv-10933
| D.N.J. | Aug 27, 2025Background
- Dr. Usman Roshan, an associate professor at NJIT, developed a machine learning course (CS 675) in 2013 and later registered the spring 2020 version of his course materials with the U.S. Copyright Office.
- Roshan alleged that NJIT, during his family medical leave (2021–2023), created an online machine learning course (DS 675) that was substantially similar to his CS 675 materials, without his knowledge or consent.
- He claimed that DS 675 was developed by another NJIT faculty member (Koutis), using Roshan's copyright-protected materials, and NJIT benefited financially from this use.
- Roshan brought claims of copyright infringement, concealment, and willful criminal infringement, seeking money damages and injunctive relief (including royalties and teaching assignments).
- NJIT moved to dismiss on grounds including copyright invalidity, statute of limitations, insufficient pleading of infringement, fair use, lack of actionable concealment/criminal claims, and improper remedies.
- The district court granted NJIT's motion to dismiss with prejudice, focusing on substantial similarity and copyrightability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright Validity / Registration | Copyright covers 2020 course version; no misrepresentation/intent | Roshan misrepresented publication date, invalidating copyright | No intent shown; registration not void at this stage |
| Statute of Limitations | Only 2024 infringement relevant; discovery rule applies | Plaintiff knew/warned of copying in 2020; claim time-barred | 2020 claims time-barred, 2024 claims timely |
| Substantial Similarity / Copyrightability | DS 675 copied unique expressions/org. of CS 675; materials protectable | Only generic ideas, methods, common topics—unprotectable | No protectable expression, no substantial similarity |
| Concealment / Criminal Infringement | Concealment and criminal infringement actionable | Not valid civil claims; also rest on failed copyright claim | Not actionable if copyright claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (Copyright infringement requires ownership of valid copyright and copying of original elements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Facial plausibility pleading standard)
- Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (Distinction between copyrightable expression and unprotectable ideas or methods)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (Copyright statute of limitations accrual and separate-accrual rule)
- Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199 (Expression vs. idea, merger doctrine)
- Tanksley v. Daniels, 902 F.3d 165 (Substantial similarity must consider only protectable elements; dismissal possible if no reasonable jury could find similarity)