The long-running legal battle between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence has been characterized by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as “no more than an ordinary copyright case,” providing finality to the contentious dispute. This litigation involved claims that ROSS had infringed upon the copyrights of Westlaw headnotes in the development of its AI-driven legal research tool. The appeal’s unsealed opinion, authored by Judge Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, aligns with the perspective of Thomson Reuters, reiterating that ROSS’s usage did not qualify as fair use. Although the case was heralded by ROSS as a pivotal confrontation over AI technology’s future in legal research, the court firmly grounded its decision in traditional copyright principles.
The opinion, released on September 29, affirms an earlier district court ruling by Judge Stephanos Bibas. The court’s decision deems Westlaw headnotes copyrightable and concludes that ROSS’s training of its AI tool using these headnotes without proper authorization did not meet the fair use standard. Notably, this ruling distinguishes from other cases where AI training was found transformative, pointing out that ROSS’s AI platform was not generative but merely returned existing text passages.
The outcome leans heavily on three legal conclusions: ROSS created a direct commercial substitute for Westlaw, failed to justify copying by necessity, and hampered Thomson Reuters’ opportunity in a rapidly evolving market for AI training data. To elaborate further, ROSS had the underlying judicial opinions available and could have used them to prepare its memos without breaching headnote copyrights. Additionally, the emerging value of licensing headnotes as AI training data factored into the court’s assessment of market harm.
Throughout the trial, three counterarguments tabled by ROSS were dismissed. The court maintained that headnotes are not synonymous with the law, quashing monopoly concerns. It further refuted the merger doctrine’s applicability and the notion that headnotes lacked sufficient originality, citing established jurisprudence from Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone and Callaghan v. Myers.
Looking beyond this decision, ROSS has indicated its intent to seek a rehearing by the full 3rd Circuit and potentially petition for certiorari from the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, unresolved aspects of the case may return to district court, including the ongoing claims of tortious interference.
The ruling is underscored by its reliance on the Supreme Court’s recent precedent in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, emphasizing the commercial nature and transformative aspects required for fair use. Although ROSS’s use of headnotes was limitedly transformative, it fundamentally shared the core purpose of Westlaw’s tool, thereby adversely affecting the fair use evaluation.
The intricacies of this case resonate with the legal community, exemplifying the challenges of navigating intellectual property rights amidst burgeoning AI developments. For a comprehensive overview of the case and its implications on AI in legal technology, access the full archive of stories. Further details on the appellate court’s decision are available in the opinion’s full text.