How the 3rd Circuit’s Decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS May Impact the AI Industry
A Case with Major Implications for Copyright and AI Training Practices
The world of artificial intelligence is watching closely as the Third Circuit considers the landmark case of Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence[i]. The case will determine whether using legal headnotes to train an AI legal search engine constitutes copyright infringement. While this case appears to be limited to training with “legal headnotes,” its outcome could send shockwaves through the entire AI industry.
At the heart of the dispute is ROSS Intelligence’s use of Westlaw’s proprietary headnotes (expertly summarized snippets of case law) to teach its AI how to answer legal questions. When Thomson Reuters (the owner of Westlaw) denied ROSS a license to use these headnotes, ROSS found an alternate route, leading Westlaw to sue Ross Intelligence[ii]. The case now asks: Are these headnotes creative enough to be copyrighted, and does using them to train an AI count as fair use or infringement?
The trial court’s initial findings suggest that even content combining facts with editorial interpretation, like Westlaw’s headnotes, could be protected by copyright[iii]. This already sends a message to AI companies: not everything on the internet is fair game for model training. The court also weighed in on the classic fair use factors, finding that ROSS’s use wasn’t transformative enough and that its product directly competed with Westlaw, tipping the scales against a fair use defense.
Depending on how the Third Circuit rules, the impact could be far-reaching[iv]. If the decision favors Westlaw, AI companies may need to secure licenses for a wide variety of content before using it for training. This would raise costs and potentially close the door to smaller startups, making it harder to innovate without deep pockets or powerful partners. On the other hand, if ROSS prevails, it could embolden AI developers to push the boundaries of what’s considered fair use, accelerating advances but also increasing friction with content creators.
It’s important to note that this case deals specifically with legal content and natural language processing, rather than generative AI output[v]. Still, the legal principles established here could influence many future disputes over AI training data.
In short, the Third Circuit’s upcoming decision isn’t just about legal research tools, it’s about setting the rules for how AI gets smarter. For anyone interested in the future of AI, copyright, and innovation, this is a case to watch closely. We will continue to follow the developments in this case and report in future blog posts on its impact on the AI industry.
By Bob Steinberg, Ben Resnick
Bob Steinberg is the Founder of Generative IQ® LLC, a venture fund that provides capital to early-stage IP rich AI start-ups. He has been protecting and litigating IP rights, working with technology entities and entrepreneurs navigating the IP landscape and monetizing blocking rights for over 30 years.
Ben Resnick is a J.D. Candidate 2027 at Southwestern Law School, where he serves as a Student Editor on the Journal of International Media & Entertainment Law. He graduated from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, in 2020 with a degree in Business Administration and a concentration in Financial Management. Ben enjoys playing tennis, hiking, surfing, and reading. He also loves to support the local LA sports teams and explore new restaurants and neighborhoods around LA.
