Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, District of Delaware memorandum opinion (11 February 2025): the refused licence (Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025), D.I. 770)
The copier asked for a licence first and was refused, then obtained the content another way. Asking and being refused does not open a fair use path.
Dated 17 Oct 2026Source checked 17 Oct 2026Basis: primary text
In the source's own words
“So Ross asked to license Westlaw’s content. Id. But because Ross was its competitor, Thomson Reuters refused.”
Where it was read
Also read from the same source
- Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: fair use rejected on summary judgment
- Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, District of Delaware memorandum opinion (11 February 2025): market for AI training data (Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025), D.I. 770)
- Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, District of Delaware memorandum opinion (11 February 2025): only non-generative AI (Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025), D.I. 770)
Figures it counts in
It is shown on its own, not counted into a figure.
Cited in this guide