Is Course Hero Heading to Summer School After Summary Judgment Loss?

On September 23, Judge Vernon D. Oliver partially granted and partially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Post University Inc. v. Learneo, Inc., 3:21-cv-1242 (VDO) (D. Del. Sept. 23, 2025). For background, the defendant in this case, Learneo, Inc. (commonly known as Course Hero), is an online platform for college, trade, and high school students that provides access to user-submitted documents via a paid subscription. Course Hero allows users to search the documents that have been uploaded by school, textbook, book title, and subject, but only users with a subscription can view the documents. Users without a subscription may access a preview version of the document, consisting of a blurred and truncated version created by Course Hero. Course Hero users have uploaded documents to the platform for many thousands of colleges, grad schools, high schools, and trade schools.

Post University, a for-profit educational institution, notified Course Hero that it had identified web pages on the Course Hero platform that Post University believed were copyrighted materials owned by Post University and also informed Course Hero that additional unauthorized use of infringing materials likely existed on the platform. Course Hero eventually disabled content at the web pages identified by Post University, but it did not address Post University’s notification that the manner in which Course Hero is operated hindered Post University’s ability to police its intellectual property. Post University filed suit, alleging direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims, alteration/removal of Copyright Management Information (“CMI”) in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims, and various other state and common law claims.

Course Hero moved for summary judgment on Post University’s claims, and the Court denied the motion as to the substantive intellectual property claims. In particular, the motion was denied as to the DMCA CMI claims. In support of this claim, Post University alleged that Course Hero removed certain metadata associated with uploaded content, such as the author information. Additionally, 

Course Hero modified the uploaded content by adding its logo, watermarks, and other copyright notices. The Court found that such modifications created triable issues that Course Hero conveyed copies of works with false CMI. The Court also rejected Course Hero’s arguments that Post University lacked standing and could not show all the scienter requirements of the CMI claims.

The Court similarly rejected Post University’s arguments that the Lanham Act claims fail as a matter of law under Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003). Dastar involved a tangible good (a video tape) that contained a copied and modified creative work (footage from a television series), where the creative work was in the public domain. The defendant creator of the video tape did not credit the original author/owner of the video tape (the plaintiff), and the plaintiff brought a passing off claim under the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court found that allowing a theory of liability for likelihood of confusion as to “origin” in the context of the Dastar facts would conflict with the law of copyright. In other words, the term “origin” as used in the Lanham Act, refers to producer of the physical goods as opposed to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied therein.

In this case, because Post University’s claims were not solely rooted in an idea embodied in physical goods, the Court denied Course Hero’s motion for summary judgment. The Court found that there were triable issues regarding the display and sale of Post University’s proprietary materials bearing valid marks, and as a result, Dastar did not foreclose Post University’s Lanham Act claims.

The Court otherwise held that Post University’s remaining state and common law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act because they did not differ qualitatively from a copyright infringement claim and partially granted Course Hero’s motion as to these causes of action.

This case may impact how platforms, in the education industry and otherwise, handle and maintain user-submitted content, particularly platforms that modify user-submitted content. In particular, Dastar does not foreclose both Lanham Act and copyright liability. Moreover, in addition to more traditional copyright infringement claims, copyright owners should consider whether leveraging the DMCA to bring claims as to the alteration of CMI is appropriate.