Healthcare AI rivals OpenEvidence and Doximity have settled their high-stakes legal battle over alleged corporate espionage, cyberattacks, and defamation. The two companies dismissed all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs. The case spotlighted critical questions around AI competitive intelligence, trade secret protection, and trust in physician-facing healthcare technology.
Healthcare AI rivals OpenEvidence and Doximity have quietly ended their legal war, reaching a settlement that dismisses all claims and counterclaims with prejudice — meaning neither side can refile. The dispute, which began in June 2025, centered on explosive allegations: OpenEvidence accused Doximity of impersonating physicians, misusing National Provider Identifier credentials, and using "prompt injection" techniques to extract proprietary AI system data. Doximity fired back, accusing OpenEvidence of defamation, false advertising, and a coordinated social media smear campaign.
The case evolved significantly over time — OpenEvidence dropped its trade-secret claims to focus on computer fraud and contract violations, while a federal judge allowed both sides' core claims to proceed. The settlement came during the discovery phase, just as OpenEvidence faced pressure over deleted Slack and messaging records.
Key Takeaways:
Why it matters: As physician-facing AI tools become a fiercely competitive market, this case — even without a verdict — signals that the legal landscape around healthcare AI security, competitive intelligence, and data protection is rapidly taking shape.
