Appeals Court Issued Opinion in ROSS Intelligence Case
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sealed its ruling in a high-profile copyright dispute involving AI tools.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Should courts keep legal opinions sealed from public view during redaction processes?
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion regarding the copyright litigation between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence on September 29, 2026. The decision is currently under seal, preventing public access while the parties prepare redactions.
Why it matters
This case is a significant indicator of how federal courts will define copyright protections for the training data utilized by generative AI platforms. The upcoming unsealed opinion will establish a legal precedent for whether scraping proprietary legal databases to train AI models constitutes fair use.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has mandated that parties submit proposed redactions within 10 days to the Clerk's office using the court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. The court will subsequently evaluate these requests before releasing a public version of the opinion.
The players
Thomson Reuters
A multinational media and information conglomerate that owns Westlaw, a major provider of legal research databases.
ROSS Intelligence
A developer of AI-powered legal research platforms that utilizes natural language processing to assist in case law analysis.
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
A federal appellate court responsible for hearing appeals from district courts within Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.
The details
The court's decision follows a legal battle centered on allegations that ROSS Intelligence scraped copyrighted legal content from Westlaw, a proprietary database owned by Thomson Reuters, to train its artificial intelligence models. Legal proceedings often involve the use of ECF — a web-based electronic filing system used by federal courts to manage case documents. The court has required both Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence to justify each proposed redaction, ensuring that the final public document protects sensitive information while resolving the core copyright questions.
Timeline
September 29, 2026: The court issued the opinion under seal.
October 9, 2026: The deadline for parties to file proposed redactions with the court.
The Tech Race
This case sits at the center of the accelerating legal friction between traditional intellectual property holders and AI developers. The court's eventual opinion will follow a pattern set by other major copyright challenges, potentially defining the scope of fair use in the era of generative large language models.
The outcome will directly influence how legal professionals and researchers access AI-powered search tools in the future. A restrictive ruling could force developers to alter training methodologies, while a broad fair use interpretation may accelerate the deployment of advanced legal analysis software.
The takeaway
The court's forthcoming opinion will serve as a bellwether for the future of AI-driven legal research tools. Stakeholders should monitor the court's public docket after October 9, 2026, for the release of the unsealed ruling.
What happens next
The court will review redaction requests submitted by October 9, 2026, before moving to unseal the opinion.
Further reading
For more on the evolving legal standards governing AI development, visit the Artificial Intelligence section.
Live Poll
Should courts keep legal opinions sealed from public view during redaction processes?
