Roshan v. NJIT — Machine-Learning Course Materials Were Not Substantially Similar

Background

New Jersey Institute of Technology professor Usman Roshan created an introductory machine-learning course, CS 675, and later registered the course syllabus, slides, notes, assignments, projects, and exams with the Copyright Office. He alleged that another NJIT professor copied those materials when developing an online course, DS 675, while Roshan was on family medical leave.

The district court compared the materials attached to Roshan’s complaint and dismissed the copyright claim with prejudice. It concluded that the two courses were not substantially similar in protectable expression. Roshan appealed.

The Court’s Holding

The Third Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential per curiam opinion. A copyright plaintiff must identify copying of protected expression, not merely a shared idea, subject, method, or teaching approach. Roshan’s geometric and intuitive way of teaching machine learning was an unprotectable idea, even if other universities commonly used a statistical approach.

The court assumed that some of Roshan’s explanations, visualizations, and selection or arrangement of material could be protected, but held that no reasonable factfinder could find substantial similarity. The courses presented material in different orders and formats, used different examples and images, contained no overlapping explanatory text, and included topics unique to each course. Similarity at the level of common machine-learning concepts was expected because both were introductory courses.

The assignments and exams did not change the result. Only a small number addressed the same topics, and those questions differed in wording, format, imagery, and sequence. Because Roshan had attached the works needed for comparison, the court held that substantial similarity could be resolved on a motion to dismiss and that another amendment would be futile.

Key Takeaways

• A pedagogical method or conceptual approach is an idea, not copyrightable expression.
• Technical and fact-intensive teaching materials may receive only thin protection when the subject permits limited ways of presenting the underlying concepts.
• Courts may decide substantial similarity at the pleading stage when the complaint incorporates the works and no reasonable jury could find their protected elements substantially similar.
• Shared topics in exams or assignments do not establish infringement when the questions use different wording, formats, images, and ordering.

Why It Matters

The ruling illustrates the narrow boundary between owning original course materials and controlling how a subject is taught. Educators may protect their particular text, graphics, and creative arrangement, but copyright does not confer exclusive rights over a teaching philosophy or the standard concepts an introductory course must cover. The opinion also shows why attaching both works to a complaint can permit an early, case-ending comparison.

Full Opinion

The opinion is nonprecedential.