Third Circuit Affirmed Ruling Against Ross Intelligence
The appellate court ruled that using copyrighted legal headnotes for AI training does not constitute fair use.
Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Should companies be allowed to use copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence tools?
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision granting partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters in its copyright infringement lawsuit against Ross Intelligence. The court rejected Ross Intelligence’s defenses after the firm used 25,000 bulk memos to build an AI legal research database.
Why it matters
This ruling clarifies the legal boundaries of training AI on proprietary datasets when the training material is deemed protectable. It underscores the difficulty for startups in competing with established incumbents when access to core data requires a license that the competitor refuses to grant.
Ross Intelligence utilized 25,000 bulk memos, which the court determined contained protectable Westlaw headnotes—summaries of legal principles written by editors—to train its AI model. The court rejected defenses of merger, scene a faire, and innocent infringement, ruling that the use of these materials was not fair use.
The players
Thomson Reuters
A global information services firm that maintains Westlaw, a proprietary legal research database.
Ross Intelligence
An AI startup that developed a legal research tool by processing large volumes of legal documents.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
A federal appellate court that provides legal oversight and precedent for the region.
The details
The dispute centers on Ross Intelligence’s attempt to build an AI platform to compete with Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw service. Because Thomson Reuters declined to license its database, Ross Intelligence extracted 25,000 bulk memos containing legal questions and answers to build its model. The court found that these materials included protectable intellectual property and that the fourth factor of fair use—the potential negative impact on the copyright holder’s market—weighed heavily against Ross.
Timeline
The court issued its original summary judgment opinion in 2023.
A revised underlying opinion was issued in February 2025.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued this appellate ruling in October 2026.
The Tech Race
This case sits at the center of a broader legal struggle over how AI companies acquire training data. It directly impacts the competitive landscape by limiting the ability of new entrants to bypass licensing requirements via the fair use doctrine.
This ruling establishes a significant barrier for developers attempting to build AI tools using existing, copyrighted datasets. Future legal research tools will likely face higher costs or slower development cycles as they are required to secure explicit licensing for their training data.
The takeaway
The court’s rejection of Ross Intelligence’s defenses confirms that the market effect factor remains a potent tool for copyright holders to block unauthorized AI training. Observers should watch for the upcoming court decision regarding the specific amount of attorneys' fees awarded to Thomson Reuters.
Further reading
For broader context on how legal challenges are shaping the industry, visit Artificial Intelligence.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Maryland Daily Record.
Live Poll
Should companies be allowed to use copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence tools?
