The ongoing legal battle between Thomson Reuters and the now-defunct ROSS Intelligence is attracting significant attention as it proceeds to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, originally prompted by allegations that ROSS infringed upon the copyright held by Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw platform, has sparked vigorous debate about the ownership and copyrightability of legal materials.
In the latest development, ten amicus curiae briefs have been filed in support of ROSS Intelligence. Among these supporters are legal research startups, technology experts, civil liberties groups, and law professors, united under the proposition that “No one can own the law.” This argument finds its roots in the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, which held that judicial opinions are part of the public domain.
In February, U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas had issued a partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters on two critical issues, which led to ROSS filing an interlocutory appeal. These issues pertained to the originality of Westlaw’s editor-created headnotes and the applicability of the fair use doctrine to ROSS’s activities. Judge Bibas had ruled that these headnotes were original enough to qualify for copyright protection and that ROSS’s use did not constitute fair use since it directly competed with Westlaw’s offerings. More information can be found in the detailed analysis by LawNext.
The amicus briefs reflect a broad array of arguments questioning the copyrightability of the headnotes, emphasizing their factual nature as mere restatements of court decisions. Legal and tech organizations contend that expansive copyright claims on such materials could stifle innovation and limit public access to legal information, underscoring the public domain status of judicial opinions.
Technological and legal scholars argue that ROSS’s use of these headnotes was transformative and a productive step toward advancing AI legal research. Advocates like Heather Meeker from Technology Law Partners, alongside other notable organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Free Law Project, highlight the detrimental impact of prioritizing commercial interests over public access to legal data.
This escalating case could set a significant precedent in legal publishing and technology sectors, particularly concerning the fair use of copyrighted materials for AI applications. Legal professionals and corporations worldwide are closely monitoring its implications, as the court prepares to assess whether Westlaw’s system is distinctively protectable and whether ROSS’s actions fall under the protections of fair use.