In a significant ruling for legal publishing and AI development, a federal judge has granted partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters in its long-running copyright infringement lawsuit against ROSS Intelligence, finding that ROSS infringed on Westlaw\u2019s copyrighted headnotes and rejecting ROSS\u2019s fair use defense. The ruling, issued today by 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals\u00a0Judge [\u2026]<\/p>\n
In a significant ruling for legal publishing and AI development, a federal judge has granted partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters in its long-running copyright infringement lawsuit against ROSS Intelligence, finding that ROSS infringed on Westlaw\u2019s copyrighted headnotes and rejecting ROSS\u2019s fair use defense.<\/p>\n
The ruling, issued today by 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals\u00a0Judge Stephanos Bibas<\/a>, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, found that ROSS infringed Thomson Reuters\u2019 copyrights in 2,243 Westlaw headnotes when it used them to train its AI-powered legal research platform.<\/p>\n The court specifically rejected ROSS\u2019s argument that its use of the headnotes constituted fair use under copyright law.<\/p>\n Read the full memorandum opinion<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n \u201cRoss was using Thomson Reuters\u2019s headnotes as AI data to create a legal research tool to compete with Westlaw,\u201d Judge Bibas wrote.<\/p>\n The decision revises Judge Bibas\u2019s 2023 summary judgment opinion<\/a> in the case, which had largely denied Thomson Reuters\u2019s motions.<\/p>\n In explaining his change of position, Judge Bibas opened his opinion with a stark admission: \u201cA smart man knows when he is right; a wise man knows when he is wrong. Wisdom does not always find me, so I try to embrace it when it does \u2014 even if it comes late, as it did here.\u201d<\/p>\n See all stories about this lawsuit.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n While the ruling is significant, it does not yet put this case to rest. Multiple issues remain to be decided at trial, including whether some of Thomson Reuters\u2019s copyrights have expired or were untimely created, and whether ROSS in fact copied Westlaw\u2019s Key Number System, as Thomson Reuters alleges.<\/p>\n The ruling focused heavily on the fair use analysis, examining the four statutory factors. While two of the factors favored ROSS, the court found, the two most important factors \u2013 the purpose and character of the use and the effect on the potential market \u2013 favored Thomson Reuters.<\/p>\n The judge specifically distinguished this case from the Supreme Court\u2019s Google v. Oracle<\/em> decision, noting that unlike the API at issue in that case, \u201cThere is nothing that Thomson Reuters created that Ross could not have created for itself or hired LegalEase to create for it without infringing Thomson Reuters\u2019s copyrights.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge also found that Westlaw\u2019s headnotes met the threshold for originality required for copyright protection, contrary to his prior opinion where he said that was a factual question for a jury to decide.<\/p>\n \u201c[A] headnote can introduce creativity by distilling, synthesizing, or explaining part of an opinion, and thus be copyrightable,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThat is why I have changed my mind.\u201d<\/p>\n The court also rejected all of ROSS\u2019s other defenses, including innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger, and scenes \u00e0 faire. However, Judge Bibas left one significant copyright issue for trial: whether some of the copyrights at issue have expired or were untimely created.<\/p>\n The case began in 2020 when Thomson Reuters sued ROSS, alleging that it had copied Westlaw content to train its competing AI legal research platform. According to the complaint, after Thomson Reuters refused to license its content to ROSS, ROSS contracted with legal research company LegalEase to obtain the content indirectly through bulk memos that were created using Westlaw headnotes.<\/p>\n The case had been scheduled to go to trial last August, but was mysteriously continued on the eve of starting. In the opinion issued today, Judge Bibas explained that, as he studied the case materials in more depth in the run-up to the trial, he \u201crealized that my prior summary-judgment ruling had not gone far enough.\u201d He thus ordered the continuance and invited the parties to renew their summary judgment briefing.<\/p>\n While this ruling resolves key aspects of the case, several issues remain for trial. In addition to the copyright issue mentioned above, Judge Bibas\u2019s prior opinion<\/a> had left several issues for trial. These include factual questions of whether ROSS copied the Key Number System and certain court opinions containing Thomson Reuters\u2019s editorial decisions, and various questions about contributory liability, vicarious liability, and tortious interference with contract.<\/p>\n \u201cI leave undisturbed the parts of my prior opinion not addressed in this one, such as my rulings on contributory liability, vicarious liability, and tortious interference with contract,\u201d he wrote today.<\/p>\nFocus on Fair Use<\/h3>\n
Long-Running Litigation<\/h3>\n