A media company alleges that Ross Intelligence, an AI firm, unlawfully utilized its content to develop a rival AI-based platform.
A media company alleges that Ross Intelligence, an AI firm, unlawfully utilized its content to develop a rival AI-based platform.
Thomson Reuters claims that Ross, based in San Francisco, replicated content from its renowned legal research platform, Westlaw, specifically the “headnotes” – concise summaries of legal points found within opinions, to aid in developing its competing AI-driven training platform.
On September 25 in a Delaware district court, Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas rejected the motions for summary judgment from both Ross and Thomson Reuters (with minor exceptions). He stated, “It is not my responsibility during summary judgment to untangle and organize these complex facts. That task belongs to the jury during the trial.”
This case is among several infringement lawsuits arising from the utilization of copyrighted material for training AI datasets. Lately, numerous authors and performers, such as Sarah Silverman, George R.R. Martin (author of Game of Thrones), and crime writer John Grisham, have initiated similar legal actions against Meta, the owner of Facebook, and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT.
Initially, Ross attempted to obtain a license to utilize Westlaw, but Thomson Reuters doesn’t permit the use of Westlaw for developing competing platforms. Consequently, Ross engaged LegalEase as a third party. Thomson Reuters claims that Ross replicated protected elements of Westlaw, both directly and indirectly via LegalEase.
Judge Bibas highlighted that the crux of the lawsuit revolved around the ‘bulk memo project’, which consisted of legal queries and corresponding answers. According to Thomson Reuters, the questions essentially mirrored headnotes but ended with question marks. Ross, however, asserted that these questions aimed to simulate inquiries a lawyer might pose, with the answers directly quoting legal opinions. This project generated approximately 25,000 sets of questions and answers.
Thomson Reuters asserts that all 25,000 sets are replicas and has accused Ross of infringing copyright on 2,830 of them. They argue that LegalEase’s replication of these 2,830 sets is indisputable, as Ross’s own expert acknowledged it.
The judge’s opinion encompasses five summary judgment motions. Thomson Reuters sought summary judgment specifically regarding its copyright infringement claim, focusing on the 2,830 memos mentioned. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment regarding Ross’s fair use defense. Additionally, Thomson Reuters pursued summary judgment concerning its claim of tortious interference with a contract, while Ross counter-moved on its preemption defense against that claim.
Westlaw holds a registered copyright for its “original and revised text and compilation of legal material,” encompassing its headnotes and key number system.
The judge noted that Ross heavily relies on Westlaw being registered as a compilation for a significant part of its defense against infringement. Ross’s argument follows this line of thought: since Westlaw holds a single copyright registration covering hundreds of thousands of headnotes and key numbers, copying just a few thousand isn’t sufficient for it to constitute infringement.
“Ross’s risk doesn’t yield results. The copyright covering a compilation extends to its copyrightable components,” he remarked.
Regarding Ross’s fair use defense and the factors to consider, the judge indicated that Ross’s uses were unquestionably commercial, with one of its objectives being to rival Westlaw. Thomson Reuters argues that this commercial utilization significantly opposes a fair use determination.
Ross argues that it substantially altered the Westlaw headnotes. However, Thomson Reuters believes Ross utilized the original, unchanged text of the headnotes to enable its AI to imitate and recreate the creative work done by Westlaw’s attorney-editors. The judge deems these matters as requiring assessment in a trial by jury.
Lastly, Judge Bibas emphasized the importance of considering the potential public benefits resulting from the copying.
“Balancing the public’s interest between safeguarding a creator or a copier is precarious and places a court in an uneasy position,” he added.
Bibas also mentioned his inability to determine whether a verdict favoring either Ross or Thomson Reuters would serve the public’s best interest. “In this scenario, we encounter a highly debated issue: Does permitting the training of AI with copyrighted material benefit the public?”
Ultimately, these questions will be deliberated upon in a jury trial, with the date yet to be determined.
Tim Wright, a technology partner at UK law firm Fladgate, highlighted that despite Ross claiming it ceased its platform in January 2021 and accusing Thomson Reuters of using litigation as a tactic against it, the start-up now confronts a jury trial in the Delaware court.
He added, “While this is a US-based case, decided on its specific details and not binding in other jurisdictions, it might emerge as a significant precedent as the inaugural AI copyright case heard in courts. It will help establish how extensively a database owner, safeguarded behind a firewall, can monetize that data while excluding others.”
Beatriz San Martin, an IP partner at Arnold & Porter in London, remarked, “This case, focusing on a natural language search engine, might emerge as a pivotal ruling guiding the approach taken by US courts in evaluating if and how AI systems might breach copyright.”
She further stated, “The extent of fair use defenses in US copyright law is more expansive compared to defenses or exemptions in English copyright law. However, the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Andy Warhol has raised uncertainties about the breadth of the US fair use defense for transformative works, particularly when the use is commercial.”
Thomson Reuters has legal representation from Jack Blumenfeld and Michael Flynn at Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell in Delaware, along with Dale Cendali, Eric Loverro, and Joshua Simmons at Kirkland & Ellis in New York.
Ross Intelligence is represented by David Moore, Bindu Palapura, and Andrew Brown at Potter Anderson & Corroon in Delaware; Gabriel Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Joachim Steinberg, Jacob Canter, Christopher Banks, Shira Liu, Margaux Poueymirou, and Anna Saber at Crowell & Moring in San Francisco; and Mark Klapow, Lisa Kimmel, and Crinesha Berry at Crowell & Moring in Washington DC.
