First appeal filed in German music copyright infringement case against OpenAI: panel not too likely to refer to European Court of Justice

Context:

• Last month, ai fray broke the news that the Landgericht München I (Munich I Regional Court) enjoined OpenAI from reproducing unlicensed German song lyrics and from storing the related data on any infrastructure located in Germany in a case brought by Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA: November 11, 2025 ai fray article). The case also declared OpenAI liable for damages to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.
• In that same decision (which we analyzed in greater detail here: November 11, 2025 ai fray article), the Munich I Regional Court declined to adopt a suggestion by both parties to refer certain questions concerning the interpretation of EU copyright law to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

What’s new: GEMA prevailed on almost every count, but not on personality rights, and yesterday lodged an appeal against the German court’s injunction (appellate case no.:  6 U 3662/25 e) in the Oberlandesgericht München (Munich Higher Regional Court), according to a spokesperson for the court.

Direct impact: OpenAI is also going to appeal, so this will be a cross-appeal. It is still unclear whether OpenAI is seeking a stay of enforcement of the injunction. It is likely that it is the case (although not certain), in hopes that it will also ultimately win the appeal, and the injunction will be completely thrown out. However, the hurdle is quite high in Germany to achieve a stay of this kind. OpenAI will have to show something the appeals court can immediately identify as erroneous or of great harm to the company, but this is difficult when it only concerns lyrics from a handful of songs (GEMA had provided 30 examples in total). 

Wider ramifications: The division of the Munich Higher Regional Court to which this appeal has been assigned is particularly notable as it also hears patent appeals. Presiding Judge Lars Meinhardt also oversaw VoiceAge EVS v. HMD. This is relevant for two reasons:

• While VoiceAge EVS v. HMD concerned standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement, this panel of judges in the Munich Higher Regional Court is particularly accustomed to highly technical arguments. And, as noted by Susman Godfrey’s Justin Nelson in an interview ip fray conducted on the $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement (October 28, 2025 ip fray article), AI copyright litigation is as technical as patent litigation.
• The Munich I Regional Court had rejected both OpenAI and GEMA’s requests to refer some questions to the ECJ, noting that there was nothing difficult for it on how to interpret EU copyright law. InVoiceAge v. HMD, the 6th panel of the Munich Higher Regional Court was also asked to refer questions to the ECJ (by both the parties involved and the European Commission), but they did not grant these requests. Instead, the court allowed the parties to file an appeal in the final appellate court (the Federal Court of Justice), which is then obliged to refer questions to the ECJ. It is likely that the panel may do this again in this case.