Which lawsuit are you referring to? I'm pretty sure GP is referring to the US Copyright Office guidance on copyrighting AI output in the US:
I don't see where in your link it says, as GP did, that "creations of a machine [...] are not eligible for copyright protection."
The guidance says that the author must be human, but that "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.”
The latter is copyrightable.
"This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. "
1. e.g. https://boingboing.net/2023/08/21/federal-judge-says-ai-gene...