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)
Training an AI as an intermediate step did not make the use transformative when the finished tool served the same purpose as the work copied.
Dated 17 Oct 2026Source checked 17 Oct 2026Basis: primary text
In the source's own words
“Thus, ROSS’s use of the headnotes shares the same ultimate purpose as Thomson Reuters’s use, making ROSS’s use minimally transformative, at best.”
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): 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)
Figures it counts in
It is shown on its own, not counted into a figure.
Cited in this guide