Medication Adherence Scale Sparks New Copyright Case
As of today, we have previously reported on six cases involving MMAS RESEARCH LLC (“MMAS”) as a plaintiff in copyright disputes. Today, we bring you another one.
MMAS is a Washington-based company founded in 2016, known for creating the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, which is a prescription compliance questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of several questions that assess whether patients are following their prescriptions and taking their medication as instructed. The assessment was copyrighted by MMAS, which profits by selling licenses to use the questionnaire. The company holds the copyrights for several versions of the assessment tool, including MMAS-4, MMAS-5, and MMAS-8. Based on previous cases we have covered, the litigation generally revolves around the alleged misuse of MMAS products by licensees.
In August 2025, MMAS filed a Complaint against New York University (“NYU”), Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”), and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (“Mt. Sinai”), accusing them of breaching their license agreements, committing copyright infringement, and misappropriating trade secrets.
MMAS accuses NYU, Pfizer and Mt. Sinai of altering 4 questions from MMAS’s questionnaire for medication non-adherence. MMAS alleges that because its Assessment Scales are copyrighted, users cannot alter the questions without explicit authorization.
MMAS alleges that in March 2025 NYU and Pfizer researchers published a study named the PALLAS Study, in which NYU used MMAS-4 as part of its research method. MMAS claims that NYU had added 5 new questions to MMAS-4 without permission, thereby altering its “construct validity” (7). MMAS further claims that in March 2019, it provided NYU with training that outlined the terms of the license, including a clear instruction that the questionnaire could only be administered through MMAS’s proprietary widget (9). However, MMAS also notes that it amended the license agreement in January of that same year, and it remains unclear whether that amendment affected how the questionnaire could be administered.
MMAS also claims that in another study, the SECURE Study, Mt. Sinai altered the scoring system of the MMAS-8 scale. Specifically, the scale was allegedly modified in a way that changed the original scoring intervals. MMAS characterizes this as misappropriation of trade secrets and warns that such changes could result in misdiagnosis of patients’ medication adherence. According to the Complaint, these changes may have endangered nearly 4,000 patients who participated in the research study.
MMAS is now seeking statutory damages for each instance of alleged copyright infringement, along with an injunction to prohibit defendants from continuing using MMAS-4 and MMAS-8 unless they obtain a valid license.
Two of the defendants have already responded to the allegations. Pfizer argues in a Memorandum supporting a Motion to Dismiss that MMAS fails to prove any direct involvement by Pfizer in the alleged copyright infringement or misappropriation of MMAS's materials. Pfizer emphasizes that, as stated in the Complaint, its only role was as a co-author of the published studies. It claims that it merely contributed to the publication and had no involvement in the use of the MMAS questionnaire or in the research trial that employed it.
Pfizer further argues that MMAS’s copyright over the questionnaire is limited. To support this, it submitted various documents—including copyright certificates and court orders—asserting that MMAS's copyright covers only the computer coding of the widget, not the pre-existing content of the MMAS-4 or MMAS-8 methodology. Pfizer reiterates that it had no part in altering the Morisky Widget and that, even if MMAS did hold full copyright protection over the product, MMAS failed to allege any direct act of infringement by Pfizer.
Mt. Sinai also responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss. In its Notice of Motion to Dismiss, Mt. Sinai argues that the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that the alleged infringement occurred entirely overseas. Mt. Sinai further challenges the validity of MMAS’s registration for the research widget, asserting that without a valid registration, MMAS fails to state a plausible claim.
Additionally, Mt. Sinai contends that the trade secret misappropriation claim is baseless because “MMAS has publicly disclosed the purported trade secrets in court documents,” rendering them no longer confidential (2). Mt. Sinai maintains that the information it used is publicly available and widely known, and therefore not protected under trade secret law.
The parties have requested that the court extend the deadlines for filing amended complaints and answers until November 2025. Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is presiding over the case and may issue a scheduling order for the upcoming proceedings at any time. We will provide further updates as new developments arise.