Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 1 of 7 PagelD# 620
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`SUMI KIM,
`
`Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:25-¢v-1258 (CMH/IDD)
`
`V.
`
`OPENAI INC., X CORP., GOOGLE LLC,
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`ANTHROPIC PBC, AMAZON.COM INC.,
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT X CORP.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 2 of 7 PagelD# 621
`
`Plaintiff’s “Final Master Rebuttal - Consolidated, Comprehensive, Exhibit-Linked,
`Procedurally Complete, and Fully Indexed” (ECF No. 101; “Opposition” or “Opp’n’’) confirms
`that Defendant X Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 93;
`“Motion” or “Mot.”) should be granted, and that Plaintiff’s claims against X Corp. should be
`dismissed.
`
`I. This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction over X Corp.
`
`Like her Complaint, the Opposition fails to demonstrate that this Court has personal
`jurisdiction over X Corp. Plaintiff does not, and cannot, refute the fact that her Complaint is devoid
`of any jurisdictional allegations. See generally Opp’n. Plaintiff also does not refute, and therefore
`concedes, that this Court lacks general jurisdiction over X Corp., a Nevada corporation whose
`principal place of business is in Texas. See id. As for specific jurisdiction, the Opposition does not
`address, much less distinguish, the case law cited by X Corp. in its brief that (a) Plaintiff’s presence
`in Virginia is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over X Corp. and (b) her conclusory
`allegation that “a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims” purportedly occurred in
`the Eastern District of Virginia also is insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction over
`X Corp.
`
`In the Opposition, Plaintiff contends she has demonstrated “minimum contacts” because
`“Grok” purportedly “responded to Virginia-originated queries.” Opp’n at 3. It is unclear what
`“Virginia-originated queries” means. To the extent Plaintiff means to impute her interactions with
`Grok to X Corp., that is misplaced. X Corp. operates X, the social media platform formerly known
`as Twitter, not Grok. Plaintiff also provides no exhibits or evidence supporting her bald assertion
`about her supposed “Virginia-originated queries.” Even if she did, it still would be insufficient to
`
`establish specific jurisdiction over X Corp. because it fails to establish any, much less all, of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 3 of 7 PagelD# 622
`
`three elements for establishing specific jurisdiction: “(1) the extent to which the defendant
`purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the
`plaintiffs’ claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of
`personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” Motion at 6 (quoting Consulting
`Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also id.
`(citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 288-89 (2014) (finding no “minimal contacts” where “no
`part of [defendant’s] course of conduct occurred in” the forum state). Thus, any so-called
`“Virginia-originated queries” with Grok, even if true, are insufficient to establish that this Court
`has specific jurisdiction over X Corp.
`
`In sum, the Opposition confirms that Plaintiff fails to establish that this Court has general
`or specific personal jurisdiction over X Corp. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against X Corp. should be
`dismissed.
`
`II. The Opposition Confirms Plaintiff Fails to State Any Claim against X Corp.
`
`In the Motion, X Corp. explained that Plaintiff failed to state any claim against X Corp. for
`several reasons. The Opposition fails to meaningfully rebut X Corp.’s arguments.
`
`First, Plaintiff does not address, and therefore concedes, X Corp.’s argument that the
`Complaint fails to identify any specific claim against X Corp., much less any specific allegation
`of misconduct by X Corp., and thus fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See
`generally Opp’n.
`
`Second, to the extent the Complaint can be construed as asserting a copyright infringement
`claim, Plaintiff fails to state such a claim for several reasons. Plaintiff admits she does not hold a
`valid U.S. copyright registration. Opp’n at 3 (asserting “Plaintiff holds valid UK . . . and Canadian
`
`... registrations . . . [but] U.S. reconsideration is pending . . . with appeal fee paid.”). That dooms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 4 of 7 PagelD# 623
`
`her copyright infringement claim to the extent it relies on her purported U.S. copyrighted work.
`See Motion at 8 (citing Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. 296, 302
`(2019) (affirming dismissal of copyright claim where plaintiff alleged it had filed applications to
`register documents with the Copyright Office but did not allege the applications had been granted
`before suing); 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (“no civil action for infringement . . . shall be instituted until . .
`. registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title”). Plaintiff also
`asserts in her Opposition that she holds valid copyright registrations in the United Kingdom and
`Canada. That unsubstantiated assertion appears nowhere in her Complaint, and thus is insufficient
`to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Motion at 8 (citing Harris v. Lexjet Corp., No.
`3:09-cv-616, 2009 WL 4683699, at *3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2009) (dismissing copyright infringement
`claim where the plaintiff did not provide a copy of the registrations or otherwise plead facts
`sufficient to establish ownership of a valid registered copyright).
`
`Even if Plaintiff had shown ownership of a copyright (she did not), the Opposition fails to
`address, and therefore concedes, that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that X Corp.—a social media
`company that does not develop or engineer artificial intelligence technologies—copied anything
`from Plaintiff, much less “constituent elements of [Plaintiff’s] work that are original.” Motion at
`8 (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). Plaintiff’s assertion
`that she has “logs [and] traplogs” that purportedly “pre-date Defendants’ access,” Opp’n at 3, even
`if true, fails to demonstrate any copying on X Corp.’s part. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a copyright
`infringement claim against X Corp., which should be dismissed.
`
`Third, Plaintiff’s Opposition also fails to address, much less refute, X Corp.’s arguments
`that (a) she failed to state a claim for patent infringement, (b) her improper attempt to amend her
`
`Complaint through a separate pleading should be rejected, and (c) even if those purported claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 5 of 7 PagelD# 624
`
`were considered, she still fails to state any of them. Motion at 9-11; see generally Opp’n. Rather,
`Plaintiff asserts that Grok “exhibits early structural adoption,” and that “[i]nternal dialogue logs,
`structural integration, and CID-ledgered response logs confirm Grok’s use.” Opp’n at 4. Again,
`Plaintiff does not explain on what basis she is seeking liability against X Corp. for her allegations
`relating to Grok. X Corp. does not operate Grok, nor does it have any artificial intelligence
`products. In any event, these inscrutable assertions, even if considered, fail to establish that
`Plaintiff plausibly alleges any, much less all, of the required elements of any claim her Complaint
`could be construed to assert. See Motion at 9 (citing Chan Soo Kim v. Green Tea Ildeas, Inc., No.
`3:17-cv-00449, 2018 WL 1172998, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2018) (stating required elements of a
`patent infringement claim); id. at 10-11 (quoting JTH Tax, Inc. v. Williams, 310 F. Supp. 3d 648,
`655 (E.D. Va. 2018) (stating the required elements of a misappropriation of trade secrets claim);
`id. at 11 (citing Brown v. Porter, No. 2:19CV376, 2020 WL 7704639, at *12 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20,
`2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19CV376, 2020 WL 7226143 (E.D. Va. Dec.
`8, 2020), aff’d, No. 21-1035, 2022 WL 337129 (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 2022) (“It is well settled that
`Virginia law requires an absolute mutuality of engagement between the parties to a contract,
`whereby each party is bound and each party has the right to hold the other party to the
`agreement.”).
`
`Finally, Plaintiff contends that in its Motion “X Corp. adopted generalized defense
`arguments misaligned with its conduct.” Opp’n at 4. It is unclear what Plaintiff intends by this
`assertion. In any event, aside from an allegation that Plaintiff sent direct messages purportedly to
`X Corp. through Elon Musk to which “no meaningful response was [allegedly] received,” Compl.
`at 2, the Complaint contains no allegations at all about X Corp.’s conduct. Plaintiff’s conclusory
`
`assertion about X Corp.’s purported “conduct” fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff has plausibly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 6 of 7 PagelD# 625
`
`alleged the required elements of any claim she purports to assert against X Corp.
`
`II1. Conclusion.
`
`In sum, for foregoing reasons and those stated in the Motion, X Corp. respectfully requests
`
`that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
`
`Dated: October 6, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Frederick S. Rudesheim
`
`Frederick S. Rudesheim (VA Bar No. 99649)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon
`
`1800 K St. NW, Suite 1000
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: (202) 639-5653
`
`Email: frudesheim@shb.com
`
`Kenneth M. Trujillo-Jamison
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`WILLENKEN LLP
`
`707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 955-9240
`Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
`ktrujillo-jamison@willlenken.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant X Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 7 of 7 PagelD# 626
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 6, 2025, the foregoing was filed and served via the
`Court’s CM/ECF system to all counsel of record and via first-class mail, postage prepaid, and
`
`electronic mail to:
`
`Sumi Kim
`
`7360 McWhorter PI. #201
`Annandale, VA 22003
`healingwaveva@gmail.com
`
`/s/ Frederick S. Rudesheim
`Frederick S. Rudesheim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`SUMI KIM,
`
`Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:25-¢v-1258 (CMH/IDD)
`
`V.
`
`OPENAI INC., X CORP., GOOGLE LLC,
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`ANTHROPIC PBC, AMAZON.COM INC.,
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT X CORP.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 2 of 7 PagelD# 621
`
`Plaintiff’s “Final Master Rebuttal - Consolidated, Comprehensive, Exhibit-Linked,
`Procedurally Complete, and Fully Indexed” (ECF No. 101; “Opposition” or “Opp’n’’) confirms
`that Defendant X Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice (ECF No. 93;
`“Motion” or “Mot.”) should be granted, and that Plaintiff’s claims against X Corp. should be
`dismissed.
`
`I. This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction over X Corp.
`
`Like her Complaint, the Opposition fails to demonstrate that this Court has personal
`jurisdiction over X Corp. Plaintiff does not, and cannot, refute the fact that her Complaint is devoid
`of any jurisdictional allegations. See generally Opp’n. Plaintiff also does not refute, and therefore
`concedes, that this Court lacks general jurisdiction over X Corp., a Nevada corporation whose
`principal place of business is in Texas. See id. As for specific jurisdiction, the Opposition does not
`address, much less distinguish, the case law cited by X Corp. in its brief that (a) Plaintiff’s presence
`in Virginia is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over X Corp. and (b) her conclusory
`allegation that “a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims” purportedly occurred in
`the Eastern District of Virginia also is insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction over
`X Corp.
`
`In the Opposition, Plaintiff contends she has demonstrated “minimum contacts” because
`“Grok” purportedly “responded to Virginia-originated queries.” Opp’n at 3. It is unclear what
`“Virginia-originated queries” means. To the extent Plaintiff means to impute her interactions with
`Grok to X Corp., that is misplaced. X Corp. operates X, the social media platform formerly known
`as Twitter, not Grok. Plaintiff also provides no exhibits or evidence supporting her bald assertion
`about her supposed “Virginia-originated queries.” Even if she did, it still would be insufficient to
`
`establish specific jurisdiction over X Corp. because it fails to establish any, much less all, of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 3 of 7 PagelD# 622
`
`three elements for establishing specific jurisdiction: “(1) the extent to which the defendant
`purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the
`plaintiffs’ claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of
`personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” Motion at 6 (quoting Consulting
`Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also id.
`(citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 288-89 (2014) (finding no “minimal contacts” where “no
`part of [defendant’s] course of conduct occurred in” the forum state). Thus, any so-called
`“Virginia-originated queries” with Grok, even if true, are insufficient to establish that this Court
`has specific jurisdiction over X Corp.
`
`In sum, the Opposition confirms that Plaintiff fails to establish that this Court has general
`or specific personal jurisdiction over X Corp. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against X Corp. should be
`dismissed.
`
`II. The Opposition Confirms Plaintiff Fails to State Any Claim against X Corp.
`
`In the Motion, X Corp. explained that Plaintiff failed to state any claim against X Corp. for
`several reasons. The Opposition fails to meaningfully rebut X Corp.’s arguments.
`
`First, Plaintiff does not address, and therefore concedes, X Corp.’s argument that the
`Complaint fails to identify any specific claim against X Corp., much less any specific allegation
`of misconduct by X Corp., and thus fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See
`generally Opp’n.
`
`Second, to the extent the Complaint can be construed as asserting a copyright infringement
`claim, Plaintiff fails to state such a claim for several reasons. Plaintiff admits she does not hold a
`valid U.S. copyright registration. Opp’n at 3 (asserting “Plaintiff holds valid UK . . . and Canadian
`
`... registrations . . . [but] U.S. reconsideration is pending . . . with appeal fee paid.”). That dooms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 4 of 7 PagelD# 623
`
`her copyright infringement claim to the extent it relies on her purported U.S. copyrighted work.
`See Motion at 8 (citing Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. 296, 302
`(2019) (affirming dismissal of copyright claim where plaintiff alleged it had filed applications to
`register documents with the Copyright Office but did not allege the applications had been granted
`before suing); 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (“no civil action for infringement . . . shall be instituted until . .
`. registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title”). Plaintiff also
`asserts in her Opposition that she holds valid copyright registrations in the United Kingdom and
`Canada. That unsubstantiated assertion appears nowhere in her Complaint, and thus is insufficient
`to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Motion at 8 (citing Harris v. Lexjet Corp., No.
`3:09-cv-616, 2009 WL 4683699, at *3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2009) (dismissing copyright infringement
`claim where the plaintiff did not provide a copy of the registrations or otherwise plead facts
`sufficient to establish ownership of a valid registered copyright).
`
`Even if Plaintiff had shown ownership of a copyright (she did not), the Opposition fails to
`address, and therefore concedes, that Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that X Corp.—a social media
`company that does not develop or engineer artificial intelligence technologies—copied anything
`from Plaintiff, much less “constituent elements of [Plaintiff’s] work that are original.” Motion at
`8 (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). Plaintiff’s assertion
`that she has “logs [and] traplogs” that purportedly “pre-date Defendants’ access,” Opp’n at 3, even
`if true, fails to demonstrate any copying on X Corp.’s part. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a copyright
`infringement claim against X Corp., which should be dismissed.
`
`Third, Plaintiff’s Opposition also fails to address, much less refute, X Corp.’s arguments
`that (a) she failed to state a claim for patent infringement, (b) her improper attempt to amend her
`
`Complaint through a separate pleading should be rejected, and (c) even if those purported claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 5 of 7 PagelD# 624
`
`were considered, she still fails to state any of them. Motion at 9-11; see generally Opp’n. Rather,
`Plaintiff asserts that Grok “exhibits early structural adoption,” and that “[i]nternal dialogue logs,
`structural integration, and CID-ledgered response logs confirm Grok’s use.” Opp’n at 4. Again,
`Plaintiff does not explain on what basis she is seeking liability against X Corp. for her allegations
`relating to Grok. X Corp. does not operate Grok, nor does it have any artificial intelligence
`products. In any event, these inscrutable assertions, even if considered, fail to establish that
`Plaintiff plausibly alleges any, much less all, of the required elements of any claim her Complaint
`could be construed to assert. See Motion at 9 (citing Chan Soo Kim v. Green Tea Ildeas, Inc., No.
`3:17-cv-00449, 2018 WL 1172998, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2018) (stating required elements of a
`patent infringement claim); id. at 10-11 (quoting JTH Tax, Inc. v. Williams, 310 F. Supp. 3d 648,
`655 (E.D. Va. 2018) (stating the required elements of a misappropriation of trade secrets claim);
`id. at 11 (citing Brown v. Porter, No. 2:19CV376, 2020 WL 7704639, at *12 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20,
`2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19CV376, 2020 WL 7226143 (E.D. Va. Dec.
`8, 2020), aff’d, No. 21-1035, 2022 WL 337129 (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 2022) (“It is well settled that
`Virginia law requires an absolute mutuality of engagement between the parties to a contract,
`whereby each party is bound and each party has the right to hold the other party to the
`agreement.”).
`
`Finally, Plaintiff contends that in its Motion “X Corp. adopted generalized defense
`arguments misaligned with its conduct.” Opp’n at 4. It is unclear what Plaintiff intends by this
`assertion. In any event, aside from an allegation that Plaintiff sent direct messages purportedly to
`X Corp. through Elon Musk to which “no meaningful response was [allegedly] received,” Compl.
`at 2, the Complaint contains no allegations at all about X Corp.’s conduct. Plaintiff’s conclusory
`
`assertion about X Corp.’s purported “conduct” fails to demonstrate that Plaintiff has plausibly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 6 of 7 PagelD# 625
`
`alleged the required elements of any claim she purports to assert against X Corp.
`
`II1. Conclusion.
`
`In sum, for foregoing reasons and those stated in the Motion, X Corp. respectfully requests
`
`that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
`
`Dated: October 6, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Frederick S. Rudesheim
`
`Frederick S. Rudesheim (VA Bar No. 99649)
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon
`
`1800 K St. NW, Suite 1000
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: (202) 639-5653
`
`Email: frudesheim@shb.com
`
`Kenneth M. Trujillo-Jamison
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`WILLENKEN LLP
`
`707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 955-9240
`Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
`ktrujillo-jamison@willlenken.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant X Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-01258-PTG-IDD Document 107 Filed 10/06/25 Page 7 of 7 PagelD# 626
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 6, 2025, the foregoing was filed and served via the
`Court’s CM/ECF system to all counsel of record and via first-class mail, postage prepaid, and
`
`electronic mail to:
`
`Sumi Kim
`
`7360 McWhorter PI. #201
`Annandale, VA 22003
`healingwaveva@gmail.com
`
`/s/ Frederick S. Rudesheim
`Frederick S. Rudesheim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
