Two of healthcare's biggest clinical AI players have buried the hatchet. Doximity and OpenEvidence settled a high-stakes legal battle that included allegations of corporate espionage, physician impersonation, and defamation. A Massachusetts federal judge dismissed all claims with prejudice on Friday, with each side covering its own legal fees — and the full terms of the deal staying under wraps.
Two of healthcare's biggest clinical AI rivals have called a truce. Doximity and OpenEvidence settled a dramatic legal feud that began in June 2025, when OpenEvidence accused Doximity executives of impersonating physicians — using real National Provider Identifier numbers — to infiltrate its AI platform and reverse-engineer its proprietary algorithms through "prompt injection" techniques. Doximity fired back with a countersuit alleging defamation, false advertising, and a coordinated smear campaign, including a misleading social media graph that declared Doximity a "loser in the AI race."
A Massachusetts federal judge dismissed all claims and counterclaims with prejudice on Friday, meaning neither side can refile. Each company will bear its own legal costs, and the full terms of the settlement remain undisclosed. Notably, the settlement came just as OpenEvidence faced a deadline to hand over internal Slack messages that were allegedly deleted during the case.
Key Takeaways:
Why it matters: As clinical AI becomes deeply embedded in medical practice, this case signals that the competitive stakes — and legal risks — are intensifying. Healthcare organizations and AI developers alike should take note: safeguarding proprietary systems and maintaining ethical competitive practices aren't just good business, they may soon be legally mandated.
