In the high-stakes world of healthcare technology, a fierce legal battle is unfolding between two companies vying to dominate artificial intelligence tools for physicians. Doximity Inc., a established player in doctor networking, and upstart OpenEvidence Inc. are now entangled in dueling lawsuits that highlight the cutthroat competition in AI-driven medical decision-making. The conflict escalated when OpenEvidence accused Doximity of corporate espionage through “prompt hacking,” a tactic allegedly used to extract proprietary AI secrets.

According to court filings, OpenEvidence claims Doximity executives posed as physicians to infiltrate its platform, injecting malicious prompts to reverse-engineer the AI model’s inner workings. This purported cyber maneuver aimed to steal trade secrets, including specialized prompts that power OpenEvidence’s system for delivering evidence-based medical insights. The lawsuit, filed in June, seeks damages and an injunction, painting Doximity as a aggressor in a market projected to reach billions.

The Origins of the Dispute

Doximity, which went public in 2021 and boasts a network of over 80% of U.S. physicians, has countered with its own suit, alleging defamation and false advertising by OpenEvidence. In a motion reported by Bloomberg Law, Doximity argues that the accusations are baseless attempts to stifle competition. The company denies any wrongdoing, asserting that its interactions with OpenEvidence’s AI were legitimate explorations of publicly accessible technology.

Insiders familiar with the case note that the rivalry stems from overlapping ambitions: both firms aim to create “ChatGPT for doctors,” integrating AI to assist with diagnostics, treatment plans, and literature reviews. OpenEvidence, backed by Sequoia Capital and founded by AI experts, positions itself as a pure-play innovator, with partnerships including content deals with prestigious journals like JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine, as detailed on its official website.

Technical Underpinnings of the Allegations

At the heart of the dispute is prompt injection, a vulnerability in large language models where crafted inputs can manipulate outputs to reveal underlying code or data. OpenEvidence’s complaint, covered in a Boston Globe article, describes months-long attacks that allegedly extracted sensitive prompts, which Doximity then used to enhance its own AI offerings, including those integrated with its telehealth and secure messaging services.

Doximity’s defense hinges on the argument that such prompts aren’t protectable trade secrets, especially if derived from open medical knowledge. A Digital Health Wire report highlights how this case could set precedents for AI intellectual property in healthcare, where data privacy under HIPAA adds layers of complexity.

Broader Implications for Healthcare AI

The lawsuits come amid rapid growth in AI adoption by doctors, with tools promising to reduce administrative burdens and improve patient outcomes. However, they expose risks like data breaches and ethical concerns over AI reliability. OpenEvidence’s allegations extend to Doximity’s acquisition of Pathway Medical, which the startup claims was part of a broader strategy to copy its technology, as outlined in a Legal.io analysis.

For industry observers, this feud underscores the fragility of AI innovation in a regulated field. Doximity’s market cap hovers around $5 billion, while OpenEvidence’s valuation approaches $1 billion, per estimates in a recent Business Insider feature. As the cases proceed in federal court, they may influence how companies safeguard AI models against reverse engineering.

Potential Outcomes and Industry Ripple Effects

Legal experts predict a protracted battle, with discovery phases likely revealing internal communications that could embarrass both sides. If OpenEvidence prevails, it might embolden startups to aggressively protect AI architectures; a win for Doximity could normalize competitive benchmarking in the sector.

Ultimately, this conflict reflects the maturation of healthcare AI, where innovation clashes with proprietary boundaries. Physicians watching from the sidelines may benefit from improved tools, but only if the legal dust settles without chilling investment in this vital area.