Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, Third Circuit opinion (29 September 2026): why generative models were distinguished (Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2026), slip op. at 17 n.7)
The appeals court limited its ruling to a non-generative tool built to replace the original. It left open how generative model training comes out.
Dated 17 Oct 2026Source checked 17 Oct 2026Basis: primary text
In the source's own words
“Unlike the AI models in Bartz and In re: OpenAI, ROSS’s AI platform cannot generate original expression, and the evidence here supports the opposite conclusion about transformativeness.”
Where it was read
Also read from the same source
- Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: Third Circuit affirms (no fair use)
- Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, Third Circuit opinion (29 September 2026): the market for AI training data (Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2026), slip op. at 26)
- Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, Third Circuit opinion (29 September 2026): factor one, same purpose (Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2026), slip op. at 16 to 17)
Figures it counts in
It is shown on its own, not counted into a figure.
Cited in this guide