The Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence AI copyright case has seen a key development. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently granted an interlocutory appeal filed by ROSS, agreeing to transfer two core legal issues in the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for review: first, whether Westlaw's legal summaries (headnotes) and its key numbering system are original under copyright law; and second, whether ROSS' use of 0.076% of Westlaw's headnotes to train its AI search engine constitutes fair use. whether ROSS's use of 0.076% of the Westlaw summaries to train its AI search engine constituted fair use.

In his ruling, the trial judge stated that, while upholding the conclusions of the February 2025 summary judgment (finding that ROSS directly infringed the copyrights of 2,243 Westlaw point-of-law notes and rejecting ROSS's fair use defense), he acknowledged that the case involves “a review of controlling legal issues, the core dispute in the case, and a determination of whether the copyrighted material is original under copyright law. issues, which refers to the application of the law at issue in the case,” but recognized that the case involved a ‘substantial disagreement over controlling legal issues’ that could fundamentally alter the course of the case. In particular, the court noted that its own shift in position between the 2023 preliminary judgment (finding that originality and fair use were within the jury's discretion) and the 2025 summary judgment (reversing in favor of Thomson Reuters' motion) underscored the complexity of the law's application.

In its motion, ROSS emphasized that the legal theories advanced in this case “understate the standard of originality and overstate the scope of copyright protection,” which could have a chilling effect on AI innovation by limiting the ability of AI systems to “reasonably learn” statements of fact. The company argued that given the urgency of the development of AI technology, the Court of Appeals should intervene early to clarify the legal boundaries.

The subsequent evolution of this case may affect the path of generative AI technology development. The Third Circuit's decision not only concerns the multi-billion dollar legal technology market, but may also set new coordinates for intellectual property protection in the age of artificial intelligence.