I read some commentary on the United States’ Statement of Interest filed, pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 517, in the OpenAI MDL litigation suggesting that such Statements by the United States are unusual.
Based on my research, that’s not accurate.
In fact, more than 400 cases cite the provision authorizing such Statements, 242 of which discuss Statements of Interests of the United States. While these numbers are not high, we must discount that most private civil lawsuits will not involve a matter involving the interest of the United States. Plus, when they do, the United States itself may already be a party in the lawsuit.
Taking these factors into account, the United States filing a Statement of Interest in a case where they are not a party and where there is an important national interest of the country or the federal government probably is common. As one court recognized: “The United States clearly has the authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517 to move to intervene in a case should it believe that its interest are sufficiently implicated, and has done so on countless occasions.” Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 195 F. Supp. 2d 140, 158 (D.D.C. 2002).
And, focusing on important technology cases, it’s common for the United States to file Statements of Interest as it did in the Blackberry patent litigation. See Hunton & Williams v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 590 F.3d 272, 275 (Jan. 4, 2020) (“On November 8, 2005, two weeks after proceedings in the BlackBerry patent litigation resumed in district court, DOJ filed a Statement of Interest and requested that the matter be stayed for 90 days. It argued that the injunction contemplated by the district court could operate as a de facto injunction against the government’s BlackBerry use and that the government needed more time to consider the issue.”).
The United States has done so in other technology lawsuits and lawsuits involving IP or competition. See, e..g., Radian v. Samsung, 2:24-cv-01073, (E.D. Tex. 2025) (ECF 52 filed Jun 24, 2025); Disney v. InterDigital, 1:25-cv-00996 (D. Del. 2025) (ECF 28 filed Oct. 6, 2025); Collision v. Samsung, 2:23-cv-00587 (E.D. Tex. 2023) (ECF 386 filed Feb. 27, 2026); Intel v. Fortress Investment Group, 3:19-cv-07651 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (ECF 148 filed March 20, 2020).
The united states national and national security interests in u.s. companies advancing the development of ai
Against this legal landscape, the United States’ Statement of Interest filed this week is anything but unusual.
Both the Biden Administration and Trump Administration have recognized the importance of developing AI to the nation and national security. In 2023, President Biden’s AI executive order instructed: America must “seize AI’s promise and deepen the U.S. lead in AI innovation.” In 2025, President Trump echoed the same goal: “The United States must act decisively to retain leadership in AI and enhance our economic and national security.”
No doubt there will be disagreement over the balance that copyright law should strike in the AI copyright litigation. That’s for the courts to resolve. But no American can seriously dispute the importance of AI to the economic standing and national security of the United States. A world in which the United States lags behind China or other countries in AI development is a world that is more precarious for everyone in the United States, no matter where they stand on the copyright issues.