VERITAS
November 3, 2025 · AI sanctions database

Isaacs v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Isaacs v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.

Court
D. New Jersey
Date
November 3, 2025
Party
Lawyer
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
No monetary sanction; counsel ordered to certify completion of an AI seminar
Penalty
No monetary penalty in this order.
Professional sanction

What the record shows

The court found that attorney Brian M. Cige violated Rule 11 by relying on two non-existent cases in a letter to the court, which counsel confirmed did not exist. Cige explained the cases were provided to him by his client, who found them using ChatGPT, and he did not verify them. The court imposed no monetary sanction and ordered Cige to certify in writing that he completed an AI seminar.

This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.

Source documents

Primary court document ↗

The test this filing did not run

Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.

Run a free reviewBack to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · D. New Jersey