The ongoing copyright lawsuit between legal research giant Thomson Reuters (TR) and legal research startup Ross Intelligence is one that many in the legal professions have been closely following. TR alleges that Ross leveraged copyrighted content from Westlaw, a function of TR’s complexities, to create its competing legal research product.
The overseeing judge for this case, Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who is currently sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, recently issued a memorandum that denied significant portions of both parties’ motions for summary judgment. As a result, the case is set to go to trial, leaving the contested issues of copyright infringement to be decided by jury.
Stay current with the lawsuit updates here.
The judge, however, ruled in favour of Thomson Reuters on a critical matter, concluding that Ross Intelligence copied headnotes and other protected content from Westlaw. TR’s argument was substantiated with both direct and collateral evidence showcasing that Ross collaboratively worked with the legal research company LegalEase to copy TR’s content. LegalEase has notably admitted to the direct copying of the headnotes.
However, as the judge pointed out, there are elements of establishing a copyright infringement claim that the lawsuit has left somewhat muddled. This “factual mess” needs to be sorted out by a jury after a trial, rather than through a judge’s summary judgment. These undecided matters include whether TR can claim copyrights in its key numbers and headnotes, which Ross contests are mere compilations unprotected by the law or restatements of judicial opinions that cannot be copyrighted. Ross Intelligence’s fair use defense and other remaining legal issues would also require judicial review.
For a deep dive into the Judge’s decision, you can read the full decision here.