Appeals Court Issued Opinion in ROSS Copyright Case
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on a copyright dispute, but the text remains temporarily sealed.
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 on September 29, 2026, regarding the ongoing copyright litigation between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence. The document is currently sealed from public view while the court processes necessary redactions.
Why it matters
The ruling carries significant implications for the intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law in the United States. Future precedent regarding the use of protected legal data to train AI models may be clarified once the opinion is finally unsealed.
The court issued the order on September 29, 2026, granting the involved parties exactly 10 days to submit proposed redactions to the Clerk's office. The public release of the document is contingent on the court's subsequent review and approval of these filings.
The players
Thomson Reuters
This is a major global provider of news, information, and software tools for legal and business professionals.
ROSS Intelligence
This is a legal research company that developed an artificial intelligence platform designed to assist attorneys with legal research.
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
This federal court hears appeals from the district courts located within Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The details
The court has instructed both Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence to submit their requested redactions along with detailed justifications for each entry. Following this review period, the court intends to unseal the final version of the opinion for public inspection.
Timeline
September 29, 2026: The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the opinion under seal.
October 9, 2026: Parties face a deadline to file their proposed redactions with the court.
The Tech Race
This dispute over legal data utilization represents a core tension in the current era of generative AI development. The case highlights how legacy publishing systems and emerging search technologies are clashing over the intellectual property rights of training datasets.
The eventual release of this ruling will dictate the legal parameters for how artificial intelligence platforms can harvest and process professional data. This impacts both the future availability of AI-powered research tools for the public and the copyright protections afforded to data creators.
The takeaway
This case serves as a critical bellwether for the legal viability of AI models that rely on proprietary databases. Readers should monitor future court filings to understand how this ruling may constrain or enable the functionality of legal tech tools.
Further reading
For more context on how courts are handling these challenges, visit our Artificial Intelligence section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by LawSites.
Live Poll
Should courts keep legal opinions sealed from public view during redaction processes?
