A federal jury on Monday ruled against Elon Musk in his closely watched legal battle over the future of OpenAI, concluding that the lawsuit had been filed after the legal deadline had already passed.

The decision came swiftly, with the nine-person federal jury reaching a unanimous verdict in under two hours of deliberations. Jurors determined that Musk waited too long to bring the case, causing it to fall outside the applicable statute of limitations.

Following the ruling, Musk’s attorney told the court that the legal team intends to preserve its option to challenge the outcome on appeal. The verdict brings an end to a three-week courtroom showdown that drew intense attention across Silicon Valley and the tech industry, with several major figures taking the witness stand.

The trial included testimony from OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, company president Greg Brockman, Musk himself, Musk adviser and partner Shivon Zillis, OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever, and Satya Nadella, the head of Microsoft.

The outcome spares the artificial intelligence industry from a potentially massive disruption at a pivotal time for the sector. Musk is preparing a public stock offering for SpaceX following its merger with his AI venture, while OpenAI is likewise moving toward its own anticipated IPO.

Years before launching xAI, Musk contributed roughly $38 million to OpenAI and later sued the organization seeking approximately $150 billion in damages, along with a court order reversing the company’s transition to a for-profit structure.

The lawsuit accused Altman, Brockman and OpenAI of abandoning the nonprofit mission on which the organization was founded by creating a for-profit arm that later secured billions in investment funding. The complaint also alleged that Microsoft helped facilitate the arrangement by investing around $13 billion into OpenAI’s commercial operations.

During testimony in the opening week of the trial, Musk repeatedly framed the case in stark terms, telling jurors: “This lawsuit is very simple: It is not OK to steal a charity.”

At another point during the proceedings, evidence showed Musk messaging Altman after one of Microsoft’s investments became public, describing the arrangement as a “bait and switch.”

Altman and the other defendants argued throughout the trial that Musk fully understood — and at times encouraged — OpenAI’s shift toward a profit-driven structure. Attorneys for Altman presented communications suggesting Musk agreed that attracting conventional venture capital investment in exchange for equity was necessary to finance the enormous computing infrastructure needed to compete with companies such as Google.

Brockman also testified about a 2017 gathering at one of Musk’s homes attended by senior OpenAI leadership, including Altman, Murati and Zillis. According to Brockman, it was “clear there was a party there the night before,” with the residence covered in “confetti and cups.”

Brockman said whiskey was served during the gathering and testified that discussions about creating a for-profit entity took place in what he described as a “celebratory” atmosphere.

One attorney who regularly represents large technology firms but was not involved in the litigation said the case appeared to gain momentum for Musk as the trial progressed. The lawyer pointed specifically to Altman’s cross-examination, during which Musk’s legal team aggressively challenged his credibility.

“Musk has more of a case here than previously thought,” said the expert, who attended most of the proceedings. “The first 15 minutes of Altman’s cross-examination were devastating.”

Questions surrounding Altman’s honesty became a major focus for Musk’s attorneys. The legal team relied heavily on testimony from former OpenAI insiders, including ex-board members Tasha McCauley and Helen Toner, as well as former technology chief Mira Murati, all of whom suggested Altman was not always forthcoming.

“My concern was about Sam saying one thing to one person and completely the opposite to another person,” Murati said in taped testimony played before a packed federal courtroom in Oakland, California.

Musk attorney Steven Molo returned to that theme during closing arguments, using a vivid analogy to challenge Altman’s credibility before the jury.

“Imagine that you’re on a hike, and you come upon one of those wooden bridges that you see on a trail and it’s over a gorge,” Molo said inside the federal courtroom.

“There’s a river that’s 100 feet below and it looks a little scary, but a woman standing by the entry to the bridge says, ‘Don’t worry, the bridge is built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth.’”

“Would you walk across that bridge? I don’t think many people would,” the lawyer added.

Altman responded directly to Musk’s repeated accusation that OpenAI had effectively stolen a charitable organization, telling jurors last week: “It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing.”