A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Parties:<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n- Plaintiffs:<\/strong> Thomson Reuters and West Publishing Corporation own and operate Westlaw, a widely used legal research database. Westlaw includes not only primary legal materials (such as case law and statutes) but also editorial elements. These editorial elements are copyrighted as original works and include:\n
\n- Headnotes that summarize legal principles from judicial opinions.<\/li>\n
- Key Number System, a proprietary classification system used to organize legal topics.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Defendant: <\/strong>ROSS Intelligence sought to develop an AI-powered legal research tool that could provide users with answers to legal questions. In order to do this,\n
\n- ROSS initially attempted to license Westlaw\u2019s materials, but Thomson Reuters denied the request.<\/li>\n
- Subsequently, ROSS partnered with a third-party vendor, LegalEase, to acquire “Bulk Memos” containing legal questions and answers derived from Westlaw\u2019s headnotes.<\/li>\n
- These Bulk Memos were used to train ROSS\u2019s AI model and formed the basis of the copyright infringement allegations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Dispute and Previous Ruling<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n- Thomson Reuters filed a suit alleging that ROSS\u2019s use of Westlaw headnotes without authorization constituted direct copyright infringement.<\/li>\n
- ROSS asserted a fair use defense and contended that its use was transformative and did not harm Westlaw’s market presence.<\/li>\n
- In 2023, Thomson Reuters\u2019 motions for summary judgment on copyright infringement and the fair-use defense were largely denied, and the case moved to trial.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Reason for Revision of 2023 opinion<\/strong><\/h5>\nWhile the case proceeded for trial in August 2024, Justice Bibas examined the evidence on record and determined that Thomson Reuters was entitled to partial summary judgment.<\/p>\n
Issues<\/h4>\n
The following issues were considered by Justice Bibas in this revised order:<\/p>\n
\n- Did ROSS unlawfully copy Westlaw\u2019s copyrighted headnotes and editorial materials?<\/li>\n
- Were the Westlaw headnotes and Key Number System sufficiently original to receive copyright protection?<\/li>\n
- Did ROSS\u2019s use of Westlaw\u2019s materials qualify as fair use under the four-factor test?<\/li>\n
- Did ROSS have a viable defense under doctrines such as innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger, or sc\u00e8nes \u00e0 faire?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Court’s Analysis<\/h4>\n
The Court analyzed the issues as follows:<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ROSS directly infringed copyright<\/strong><\/h5>\nThe Court noted that:<\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ROSS directly copied 2,243 headnotes from Westlaw.<\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0\u00a0 The headnotes met the low threshold of originality required for copyright protection.<\/p>\n
(iii)\u00a0 The Key Number System was sufficiently original to qualify as a protected compilation.<\/p>\n
Thus, finding direct copyright infringement by ROSS, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favour of Thomson Reuters. To decide on these issues, Justice Bibas created an example and compared the Bulk Memo questions (LegalEase), headnotes (Westlaw), and case opinions.<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"http:\/\/bananaip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Image-300x93.png\")
<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fair Use Defense rejected<\/strong><\/h5>\nROSS argued that it used Westlaw\u2019s headnotes under the fair use doctrine. However, the Court analyzed the four-factor test to determine fair use and concluded:<\/p>\n
\n- Factor 1: Purpose and Character of Use <\/u>\u2192 Against ROSS<\/u>\n
\n- ROSS\u2019s use was commercial and not transformative.<\/li>\n
- ROSS sought to create a competing legal research tool rather than adding new expressions or meaning to the copied materials.<\/li>\n
- Intermediate copying, often permitted in software development cases, was not applicable in this context.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Factor 2: Nature of the Copyrighted Work <\/u>\u2192 Favouring ROSS<\/u>\n
\n- While the headnotes were original, they were not highly creative.<\/li>\n
- The Court acknowledged that legal research materials are closer to factual compilations than expressive works.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Factor 3: Amount and Substantiality of Use <\/u>\u2192 Favouring ROSS<\/u>\n
\n- ROSS did not directly reproduce the headnotes in its final product.<\/li>\n
- Instead, the headnotes were used internally for AI training.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Factor 4: Market Harm <\/u>\u2192 Against ROSS<\/u>\n
\n- ROSS\u2019s AI functioned as a market substitute for Westlaw, harming Thomson Reuters\u2019 commercial interests.<\/li>\n
- The ruling also considered the potential market for licensing data for AI training, which should be Thomson Reuters\u2019 right to control.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The first and the fourth factors were against ROSS. Since they were more important and outweighed factors 2 and 3, the fair use defense was rejected.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Other Defenses rejected<\/strong><\/h5>\nROSS raised several additional defenses, all of which were rejected by the Court:<\/p>\n
\n- Innocent Infringement:<\/u> Not applicable, as Westlaw materials contained clear copyright notices.<\/li>\n
- Copyright Misuse:<\/u> No evidence that Thomson Reuters engaged in anti-competitive behavior.<\/li>\n
- Merger Doctrine:<\/u> The Court found that there were multiple ways to express legal principles; the headnotes were not mere restatements of legal doctrines.<\/li>\n
- Sc\u00e8nes \u00e0 Faire:<\/u> The headnotes did not constitute stock elements and are not an obvious\/required transformation of a legal opinion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Order<\/h4>\n
Based on the above analysis, Justice Bibas,<\/p>\n
\n- Granted partial summary judgment for Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement.<\/li>\n
- Granted summary judgment rejecting ROSS\u2019s fair use defense.<\/li>\n
- Denied ROSS\u2019s motions for summary judgment on copyright claims.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The factual determination of the remaining issue, whether some of Westlaw\u2019s copyrights have expired, will be made by a jury.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h4>\n
The Court\u2019s ruling reinforced copyright protections for editorial content and annotations. It set a precedent that companies cannot freely use copyrighted materials for training AI Models without a proper license, particularly where the use is commercial, thus also recognizing market harm as a significant fair use factor. This ruling emphasizes that AI developers may have to exercise greater care in using copyrighted materials as training data. By acknowledging that the present case involved non-generative AI in a rapidly changing landscape, this decision leaves the door open for different defenses as well as different parameters that may apply in relation to generative AI.<\/p>\n
Citation:<\/strong> Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH and Anr. vs Ross Intelligence Inc. (No. 1:20-cv-613-sb) Before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on 11th<\/sup> February, 2025, accessible at: <\/em>https:\/\/www.ded.uscourts.gov\/sites\/ded\/files\/opinions\/20-613_5.pdf<\/em><\/a> (last visited on 22nd February, 2025)<\/em><\/p>\nAuthored by Kavya Sadashivan, IP Innovation, Consulting & Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels.<\/strong><\/p>\nDisclaimer<\/strong><\/h4>\nThe case note\/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Headnotes that summarize legal principles from judicial opinions.<\/li>\n
- Key Number System, a proprietary classification system used to organize legal topics.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Defendant: <\/strong>ROSS Intelligence sought to develop an AI-powered legal research tool that could provide users with answers to legal questions. In order to do this,\n
- \n
- ROSS initially attempted to license Westlaw\u2019s materials, but Thomson Reuters denied the request.<\/li>\n
- Subsequently, ROSS partnered with a third-party vendor, LegalEase, to acquire “Bulk Memos” containing legal questions and answers derived from Westlaw\u2019s headnotes.<\/li>\n
- These Bulk Memos were used to train ROSS\u2019s AI model and formed the basis of the copyright infringement allegations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Dispute and Previous Ruling<\/strong><\/h5>\n
- \n
- Thomson Reuters filed a suit alleging that ROSS\u2019s use of Westlaw headnotes without authorization constituted direct copyright infringement.<\/li>\n
- ROSS asserted a fair use defense and contended that its use was transformative and did not harm Westlaw’s market presence.<\/li>\n
- In 2023, Thomson Reuters\u2019 motions for summary judgment on copyright infringement and the fair-use defense were largely denied, and the case moved to trial.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Reason for Revision of 2023 opinion<\/strong><\/h5>\n
While the case proceeded for trial in August 2024, Justice Bibas examined the evidence on record and determined that Thomson Reuters was entitled to partial summary judgment.<\/p>\n
Issues<\/h4>\n
The following issues were considered by Justice Bibas in this revised order:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Did ROSS unlawfully copy Westlaw\u2019s copyrighted headnotes and editorial materials?<\/li>\n
- Were the Westlaw headnotes and Key Number System sufficiently original to receive copyright protection?<\/li>\n
- Did ROSS\u2019s use of Westlaw\u2019s materials qualify as fair use under the four-factor test?<\/li>\n
- Did ROSS have a viable defense under doctrines such as innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger, or sc\u00e8nes \u00e0 faire?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Court’s Analysis<\/h4>\n
The Court analyzed the issues as follows:<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ROSS directly infringed copyright<\/strong><\/h5>\n
The Court noted that:<\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ROSS directly copied 2,243 headnotes from Westlaw.<\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0\u00a0 The headnotes met the low threshold of originality required for copyright protection.<\/p>\n
(iii)\u00a0 The Key Number System was sufficiently original to qualify as a protected compilation.<\/p>\n
Thus, finding direct copyright infringement by ROSS, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favour of Thomson Reuters. To decide on these issues, Justice Bibas created an example and compared the Bulk Memo questions (LegalEase), headnotes (Westlaw), and case opinions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nB.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fair Use Defense rejected<\/strong><\/h5>\n
ROSS argued that it used Westlaw\u2019s headnotes under the fair use doctrine. However, the Court analyzed the four-factor test to determine fair use and concluded:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Factor 1: Purpose and Character of Use <\/u>\u2192 Against ROSS<\/u>\n
- \n
- ROSS\u2019s use was commercial and not transformative.<\/li>\n
- ROSS sought to create a competing legal research tool rather than adding new expressions or meaning to the copied materials.<\/li>\n
- Intermediate copying, often permitted in software development cases, was not applicable in this context.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Factor 2: Nature of the Copyrighted Work <\/u>\u2192 Favouring ROSS<\/u>\n
- \n
- While the headnotes were original, they were not highly creative.<\/li>\n
- The Court acknowledged that legal research materials are closer to factual compilations than expressive works.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Factor 3: Amount and Substantiality of Use <\/u>\u2192 Favouring ROSS<\/u>\n
- \n
- ROSS did not directly reproduce the headnotes in its final product.<\/li>\n
- Instead, the headnotes were used internally for AI training.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
- Factor 4: Market Harm <\/u>\u2192 Against ROSS<\/u>\n
- \n
- ROSS\u2019s AI functioned as a market substitute for Westlaw, harming Thomson Reuters\u2019 commercial interests.<\/li>\n
- The ruling also considered the potential market for licensing data for AI training, which should be Thomson Reuters\u2019 right to control.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The first and the fourth factors were against ROSS. Since they were more important and outweighed factors 2 and 3, the fair use defense was rejected.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Other Defenses rejected<\/strong><\/h5>\n
ROSS raised several additional defenses, all of which were rejected by the Court:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Innocent Infringement:<\/u> Not applicable, as Westlaw materials contained clear copyright notices.<\/li>\n
- Copyright Misuse:<\/u> No evidence that Thomson Reuters engaged in anti-competitive behavior.<\/li>\n
- Merger Doctrine:<\/u> The Court found that there were multiple ways to express legal principles; the headnotes were not mere restatements of legal doctrines.<\/li>\n
- Sc\u00e8nes \u00e0 Faire:<\/u> The headnotes did not constitute stock elements and are not an obvious\/required transformation of a legal opinion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Order<\/h4>\n
Based on the above analysis, Justice Bibas,<\/p>\n
- \n
- Granted partial summary judgment for Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement.<\/li>\n
- Granted summary judgment rejecting ROSS\u2019s fair use defense.<\/li>\n
- Denied ROSS\u2019s motions for summary judgment on copyright claims.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The factual determination of the remaining issue, whether some of Westlaw\u2019s copyrights have expired, will be made by a jury.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h4>\n
The Court\u2019s ruling reinforced copyright protections for editorial content and annotations. It set a precedent that companies cannot freely use copyrighted materials for training AI Models without a proper license, particularly where the use is commercial, thus also recognizing market harm as a significant fair use factor. This ruling emphasizes that AI developers may have to exercise greater care in using copyrighted materials as training data. By acknowledging that the present case involved non-generative AI in a rapidly changing landscape, this decision leaves the door open for different defenses as well as different parameters that may apply in relation to generative AI.<\/p>\n
Citation:<\/strong> Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH and Anr. vs Ross Intelligence Inc. (No. 1:20-cv-613-sb) Before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on 11th<\/sup> February, 2025, accessible at: <\/em>https:\/\/www.ded.uscourts.gov\/sites\/ded\/files\/opinions\/20-613_5.pdf<\/em><\/a> (last visited on 22nd February, 2025)<\/em><\/p>\n
Authored by Kavya Sadashivan, IP Innovation, Consulting & Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Disclaimer<\/strong><\/h4>\n
The case note\/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\n
- Copyright Misuse:<\/u> No evidence that Thomson Reuters engaged in anti-competitive behavior.<\/li>\n
- Innocent Infringement:<\/u> Not applicable, as Westlaw materials contained clear copyright notices.<\/li>\n
- Factor 1: Purpose and Character of Use <\/u>\u2192 Against ROSS<\/u>\n