Just two days before trial, both parties in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence filed statements regarding an apparent decision by Judge Bibas, which is not yet available on the docket. In a sealed pleading, the defendant ROSS calls the decision “the court’s sua sponte summary judgment decision.” In its response, Thomson Reuters refers to it as “the court’s order.”
Based on Thomson Reuters’ statement, it sounds like Judge Bibas just ruled that some direct infringement occurred, but the scope of infringement and the fair use defense will be decided at trial.
Second, the Court’s finding of direct infringement is correct. In terms of ownership of a
valid copyright, Plaintiffs owns valid copyright registrations in Westlaw which entitle it to a
presumption of validity. Moreover, the standard for validity under Feist Publications v. Rural
Telephone Service is extremely low, requiring merely some minimal degree of creativity. 499
U.S. 340 (1991). The Court rightfully found, applying this low standard, that Westlaw is entitled
to that protection. And the Court was also correct that at least some protectable parts of Westlaw
were misappropriated, including based on ROSS’s own admissions as laid out in the briefing on
this issue that already took place. Whether direct infringement occurred is thus not in question,
so there is no reason to send that issue to the jury….In short, the Court’s order streamlines certain issues, but it does not change the
fundamentals of the case and the parties should readily be able to adjust and proceed with trial as
planned this week.Thomson Reuters’ statement
Presumably, we can expect some kind of order from the court soon. Stay tuned.