Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corp. filed a suit against ROSS Intelligence Inc. for copyright infringement before the District Court of Delaware. Thomson Reuters alleged that ROSS Intelligence, an AI-based legal research start-up, infringed Westlaw’s copyright by using its headnotes and editorial content to train ROSS’s AI-powered legal research tool. In February 2025, Justice Stephanos Bibas revised his 2023 summary judgment, in which he granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters.
Background
A. The Parties:
- Plaintiffs: 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:
- Headnotes that summarize legal principles from judicial opinions.
- Key Number System, a proprietary classification system used to organize legal topics.
- Defendant: 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,
- ROSS initially attempted to license Westlaw’s materials, but Thomson Reuters denied the request.
- Subsequently, ROSS partnered with a third-party vendor, LegalEase, to acquire “Bulk Memos” containing legal questions and answers derived from Westlaw’s headnotes.
- These Bulk Memos were used to train ROSS’s AI model and formed the basis of the copyright infringement allegations.
B. The Dispute and Previous Ruling
- Thomson Reuters filed a suit alleging that ROSS’s use of Westlaw headnotes without authorization constituted direct copyright infringement.
- ROSS asserted a fair use defense and contended that its use was transformative and did not harm Westlaw’s market presence.
- In 2023, Thomson Reuters’ motions for summary judgment on copyright infringement and the fair-use defense were largely denied, and the case moved to trial.
C. Reason for Revision of 2023 opinion
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.
Issues
The following issues were considered by Justice Bibas in this revised order:
- Did ROSS unlawfully copy Westlaw’s copyrighted headnotes and editorial materials?
- Were the Westlaw headnotes and Key Number System sufficiently original to receive copyright protection?
- Did ROSS’s use of Westlaw’s materials qualify as fair use under the four-factor test?
- Did ROSS have a viable defense under doctrines such as innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger, or scènes à faire?
Court’s Analysis
The Court analyzed the issues as follows:
A. ROSS directly infringed copyright
The Court noted that:
(i) ROSS directly copied 2,243 headnotes from Westlaw.
(ii) The headnotes met the low threshold of originality required for copyright protection.
(iii) The Key Number System was sufficiently original to qualify as a protected compilation.
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.
B. Fair Use Defense rejected
ROSS argued that it used Westlaw’s headnotes under the fair use doctrine. However, the Court analyzed the four-factor test to determine fair use and concluded:
- Factor 1: Purpose and Character of Use → Against ROSS
- ROSS’s use was commercial and not transformative.
- ROSS sought to create a competing legal research tool rather than adding new expressions or meaning to the copied materials.
- Intermediate copying, often permitted in software development cases, was not applicable in this context.
- Factor 2: Nature of the Copyrighted Work → Favouring ROSS
- While the headnotes were original, they were not highly creative.
- The Court acknowledged that legal research materials are closer to factual compilations than expressive works.
- Factor 3: Amount and Substantiality of Use → Favouring ROSS
- ROSS did not directly reproduce the headnotes in its final product.
- Instead, the headnotes were used internally for AI training.
- Factor 4: Market Harm → Against ROSS
- ROSS’s AI functioned as a market substitute for Westlaw, harming Thomson Reuters’ commercial interests.
- The ruling also considered the potential market for licensing data for AI training, which should be Thomson Reuters’ right to control.
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.
C. Other Defenses rejected
ROSS raised several additional defenses, all of which were rejected by the Court:
- Innocent Infringement: Not applicable, as Westlaw materials contained clear copyright notices.
- Copyright Misuse: No evidence that Thomson Reuters engaged in anti-competitive behavior.
- Merger Doctrine: The Court found that there were multiple ways to express legal principles; the headnotes were not mere restatements of legal doctrines.
- Scènes à Faire: The headnotes did not constitute stock elements and are not an obvious/required transformation of a legal opinion.
Order
Based on the above analysis, Justice Bibas,
- Granted partial summary judgment for Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement.
- Granted summary judgment rejecting ROSS’s fair use defense.
- Denied ROSS’s motions for summary judgment on copyright claims.
The factual determination of the remaining issue, whether some of Westlaw’s copyrights have expired, will be made by a jury.
Conclusion
The Court’s 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.
Citation: 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 February, 2025, accessible at: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613_5.pdf (last visited on 22nd February, 2025)
Authored by Kavya Sadashivan, IP Innovation, Consulting & Strategy Team, BananaIP Counsels.
Disclaimer
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.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
