Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH et al v. ROSS Intelligence Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against ROSS Intelligence Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number ADEDC-2919270.) - filed by West Publishing Corporation, Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(mal)

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMSON REUTERS ENTERPRISE
CENTRE GMBH and
WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROSS INTELLIGENCE INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. ___________
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH (“Thomson Reuters”) and West
Publishing Corporation (“West”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint, hereby allege
against Defendant ROSS Intelligence Inc. (“ROSS”) as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

Plaintiffs created and nurtured their well-known Westlaw product since its

inception, including without limitation its unique West Key Number System (“WKNS”) and
West Headnotes (collectively, “Westlaw Content”). ROSS is attempting to create a business by
taking for itself critical features of Westlaw, without permission from or compensation to
Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, ROSS illicitly and surreptitiously used a then-Westlaw
licensee to acquire access to and copy Plaintiffs’ valuable content. ROSS did so, not for the
purposes of legal research, but to rush out a competing product without having to spend the
resources, creative energy, and time to create it itself. The net result is that Plaintiffs are now
being put in the unfair position of having to compete with a product that they unknowingly
helped create.

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2

2.

This action seeks to recover damages that Plaintiffs have suffered and to prevent

the irreparable harm that continues to threaten them as a result of ROSS’s deceitful and willful
copying of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content and organization, as well as ROSS’s tortious
interference with contract.
3.

Specifically, upon information and belief, ROSS intentionally and knowingly

induced a third-party called LegalEase Solutions, LLC (“LegalEase”)—a legal support services
company—to breach its contract with West by engaging in the unlawful reproduction of
Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content and distribution of that content en masse to ROSS. ROSS did so
after asking for and explicitly being denied access to Westlaw by West on the basis that West
does not give competitors access to its products. Thus, ROSS induced LegalEase to engage in
this unlawful activity, knowing that it violated the terms of LegalEase’s contract with West and
that West would not grant ROSS a license to use Plaintiffs’ content to create a competing
product.

ROSS committed direct copyright infringement by reproducing and creating a

derivative work based on Plaintiffs’ content, and is also secondarily liable for LegalEase’s
copyright infringement.
4.

In short, ROSS has engaged, and continues to engage, in a pattern and practice of

knowingly, intentionally, and willfully infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Further, it is obvious
from the roundabout and deceitful tactics ROSS employed to gain access to Westlaw, , that it
was aware what it was doing was improper, and without authorization or consent from the
Plaintiffs.
5.

Hence, due to ROSS’s blatant and willful infringement, Thomson Reuters and

West file this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and damages that they have suffered as a result of
ROSS’s direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of

2

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3

1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq., and intentional and tortious interference with contractual
relations.
PARTIES
6.

Plaintiff Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH is a limited liability company

having its principal place of business in Zug, Switzerland. It is the owner of the copyrights in
and to Westlaw Content.
7.

Plaintiff West Publishing Corporation is a Minnesota corporation having its

principal place of business at 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, Minnesota 55123. West creates and
authors Westlaw Content.
8.

Defendant ROSS Intelligence Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware and having an office in San Francisco, California.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.

This action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. and

Delaware law. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367.
10.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

I.

Plaintiffs and the Creativity of Westlaw
11.

Plaintiffs are well-known as industry leaders in online legal research. Westlaw, in

particular, offers to West’s subscribers access to a comprehensive collection of legal information
that is easily searchable through keywords, natural language, and/or Boolean inquiries, backed
by a rigorous editorial process that makes navigating the legal field simple.

Editorial

enhancements, such as Plaintiffs’ proprietary West Headnotes, notes of decisions, and the
WKNS are but a few examples of the creative and original material authored by West’s
dedicated attorney-editors. Westlaw makes legal research seamless through its well-designed
3

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4

structure, sequence, and organization. Below is Westlaw’s home page, which helps subscribers
easily navigate to the exact information for which they are looking.
Westlaw’s Home Page

12.

Integral to Westlaw is Plaintiffs’ WKNS, which organizes U.S. law using a

hierarchy that is unique to Plaintiffs. The WKNS is the backbone through which thousands of
lawyers conduct legal research. The development of the WKNS, beginning in print and now in a
digital format, has been and continues to be the result of Plaintiffs’ numerous creative choices
about how to organize cases and which cases to place in that classification, requiring substantial
investments of time, technological and human resources, and money over the course of decades.
Below is the WKNS home page that can be navigated by Westlaw subscribers.

4

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5

The WKNS Home Page

13.

As an example of Plaintiffs’ complex hierarchy, within the “Abandoned and Lost

Property” topic are the Key Numbers “Nature and elements,” “evidence and questions for jury,”
and “operation and effect.” Within the “Nature and elements” Key Number are Key Numbers
assigned to the legal issues and points of law “In general,” “Intent,” and “Acts and omissions”
topics. The “In general” Key Number is delineated 1k1.1, and currently contains 603 cases.
Nothing dictated the hierarchy that Plaintiffs created as cases, topics, legal issues, and points of
law could be arranged in an unlimited number of combinations.
14.

As decisions are issued, West’s attorney-editors—all of whom are bar-admitted—

carefully review them and create original West Headnotes to describe the key concepts discussed
in the case. West’s attorney-editors then integrate those West Headnotes into the WKNS so
subscribers can easily find the latest decisions on any given topic or issue. Moreover, West’s
attorney-editors regularly edit and revise the West Headnotes and the West Key Numbers of
previously integrated cases so that subscribers can trust the accuracy and timeliness of the
information that is offered.
5

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6

15.

Westlaw includes access to volumes of proprietary material (such as West

Headnotes, case summaries, and other Westlaw-created content), databases, and compilations of
case law, state and federal statutes, state and federal regulations, law journals, treatises, and other
resources—all organized and curated by West’s editorial team. Westlaw incorporates decades of
search and editorial intelligence with the latest technological innovations to bring its subscribers
the most comprehensive legal research platform on the market. Below is an example of West
Headnotes describing the key concepts discussed in the Harper & Row case, as well as the
manner in which subscribers can see and further navigate to corresponding West Key Numbers.

16.

The WKNS adds immeasurable value to Westlaw.

It is how thousands of

professionals learn to navigate and conceptualize the legal field and is what helped position
Westlaw as the leading legal research service.
17.

Plaintiffs take great care in deciding who they permit to access Westlaw and what

those with access are allowed to do with it. Plaintiffs have invested hundreds of millions of
dollars in Westlaw and thus take measures, such as those limitations set forth in West’s
Subscriber Agreements, to protect the proprietary nature of Westlaw Content.

6

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7

18.

Specifically, each of West’s Subscriber Agreements with third parties—like the

one it entered into with LegalEase (the “Service Agreement”)—provides precisely what third
parties are and are not allowed to do with Westlaw content. Critically, the Service Agreement
provides that a subscriber “may not sell, sublicense, distribute, display, store or transfer [West’s]
products or any data in [its] products in bulk or in any way that could be used to replace or
substitute for [its] products in whole or in part or as a component of any material offered for sale,
license or distribution to third parties.” Moreover, although a subscriber may “store, on a matterby-matter basis, insubstantial portions of [Westlaw content]… in connection with an active
matter being handled by Subscriber in its regular course of business,” the amount stored must
“(a) have no independent value other than as part of Subscriber’s work product; and (b) c[an] not
be used in any way in whole or in part as a substitute for any service or product provided by
West.”

Similarly, although a subscriber may “on an occasional basis and via Product

functionality, direct West to transmit individual documents in electronic format to… individual
third parties in connection with actual, ascertainable matters being handled by Subscriber…. [a]ll
other direct transmission of electronic copies by Subscriber is prohibited.” Finally, the Service
Agreement provides that a “Subscriber shall not copy, download, scrape, store, publish, post,
transmit, retransmit, transfer, distribute, disseminate, broadcast, circulate, sell, resell, license,
sublicense or otherwise use [Westlaw content], or any portion of [Westlaw content], in any form
or by any means except as expressly permitted by [the License Grant], or as otherwise expressly
permitted in writing by West.”
19.

As these restrictions show, although Westlaw subscribers are permitted to use

Westlaw in certain ways, they are expressly prohibited from using Westlaw Content to create a
competitive product or to sell the Plaintiffs’ proprietary content to others. Westlaw, including

7

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8

Westlaw Content, is extremely valuable, and thus West is constantly monitoring user activity for
behavior that would breach the terms of its subscriber agreement—which is precisely how West
discovered ROSS’s unlawful infringement and covert activity.
II.

Plaintiffs’ Valuable Intellectual Property Rights in Westlaw
20.

Plaintiffs have invested vast resources, including creativity, talent, time, effort,

and money, to create Westlaw Content. West employs attorney-editors whose sole responsibility
is to review decisions, create original and creative West Headnotes summarizing key points of
law, and organizing those cases and West Headnotes in the WKNS. In addition, the editors are
regularly reviewing existing West Headnotes and the WKNS to ensure the greatest accuracy in
light of the countless new cases that are added every day.
21.

Cases, areas of law, legal topics, legal issues, subtopics, and subissues can all be

summarized and organized in a variety of different ways—the structure, sequence, and
organization of the WKNS is not something that has been achieved by accident or necessity;
rather, it is the result of decades of human creativity and choices.
22.

To protect Westlaw, Thomson Reuters registers the database with the United

States Copyright Office every three months. For example, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct copies of certificates of registration issued
by the Copyright Office and other documents reflecting Westlaw’s registrations. They reflect the
effective date of registration, as well as the assigned registration numbers.
23.

Thomson Reuters is the sole owner and proprietor of all right, title, and interest in

and to the copyrights in Westlaw. The copyrights in Westlaw are presently valid and subsisting
and were valid and subsisting at all times affecting the matters complained of herein.

8

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9

III.

ROSS Intelligence and Its Infringement of Westlaw
24.

Upon information and belief, ROSS was founded in 2015 and is engaged in the

business of offering and providing to the public legal research services through its ROSS
platform.
25.

Upon information and belief, ROSS first began by offering research services in

both bankruptcy and intellectual property law, but now offers case law, statutes, and regulations
across various practice areas and all 50 states.
26.

Upon information and belief, as the screenshot below illustrates, ROSS’s users

are able to search for relevant law by posing a question in natural language, as opposed to
Boolean terms or key words.
Results of Natural Language Search on ROSS

27.

Upon information and belief, similar to Westlaw, the ROSS platform provides

users with case summaries and treatments, as well as allows the user to use the initial search

9

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10

results as a jumping-off point to find additional cases with similar facts and/or procedural
postures.
28.

Upon information and belief, to create a legal research platform that could

compete with Westlaw, ROSS needed to acquire vast amounts of legal content, descriptions of
that content, and a means by which to organize that legal content. ROSS knew that it would not
be granted access to Westlaw for such a purpose, so instead ROSS opted to gain access to
Westlaw through deceitful and undisclosed tactics.
29.

Upon information and belief, to develop its platform, ROSS contracted with

LegalEase—a legal research and writing support services company. Because LegalEase only
provides research and writing services, not a competing legal research product like ROSS does, it
was able to obtain a limited license beginning in 2008 to use Westlaw to conduct legal research
for customers. The Service Agreement between LegalEase and West prohibited LegalEase from
running or installing any computer software on West’s products or network, as well as selling,
sublicensing, distributing, displaying, storing, or transferring Westlaw information in bulk to
third parties.
30.

For years, LegalEase’s usage appeared to show that it abided by the terms of the

Service Agreement. That all changed in July 2017.
31.

Prior to July 2017, LegalEase had consistently averaged approximately 6,000

Westlaw transactions per month.1 Beginning in about July 2017, LegalEase’s use of Westlaw
spiked dramatically, eventually reaching approximately 236,000 transactions per month, which,
as shown below, is nearly a forty-fold increase over LegalEase’s historical usage pattern and

1

For the purposes of this complaint, a “transaction” refers to any executed search, as well
as any viewing, printing, downloading, or emailing of a specific document.
10

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11

represents a usage rate of nearly five times greater than the average monthly usage of the
“AmLaw 100” law firms.
LegalEase’s Westlaw Usage2

32.

Further investigation revealed that users of certain Westlaw credentials assigned

to LegalEase were exhibiting activity that indicated that computer software, or a “bot,” was
being used, and that it appeared as though content from Westlaw was being downloaded and
stored in bulk by said those software tools in violation of the Service Agreement. West observed
that LegalEase’s software was systematically making its way through the WKNS to, upon
information and belief, reproduce and store the manner in which the WKNS was organized.
33.

Upon information and belief, LegalEase implemented this automated software,

materially breached its Service Agreement with West, and unlawfully reproduced and distributed
the copyright-protected Westlaw Content at the direction of and to benefit ROSS. In a July 2017
interview—the same time LegalEase’s Westlaw transactions began to skyrocket—LegalEase
stated that it was working with “a machine learning legal research firm,” later revealed to be
ROSS, to help create a new legal research product. LegalEase explained that it was feeding

2

This graph is based on usage data West regularly tracks and records for its subscribers.
11

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12

ROSS with “tons and tons of legal research,” which, upon information and belief, was
copyrighted content from Westlaw, to help create ROSS’s competing product.
34.

Upon information and belief, ROSS paid LegalEase to copy the Westlaw Content

from Westlaw to build ROSS’s competing platform, thereby knowingly and deliberately
instructing LegalEase to breach its Service Agreement with West. Upon information and belief,
LegalEase and ROSS have been working together since at least October 2015.
35.

Upon information and belief, after LegalEase copied the Westlaw Content, it

distributed that content to Ross. Ross then copied that content and used it to create its platform.
36.

By letter dated January 4, 2018, West terminated LegalEase’s Service Agreement

due to LegalEase’s material breach and violation of the Service Agreement. The effective date
of termination was January 17, 2018.
37.

It is clear that by copying the copyright-protected Westlaw Content—

piggybacking off of the creativity, countless hours, and extraordinary expense that have gone
into creating Westlaw—ROSS drastically sped up its development time and reduced the cost
associated with the development of its competing platform.
38.

Upon information and belief, ROSS’s copying has allowed it to forego the

immense expenditure of resources—including creativity, talent, time, effort, and money—that
otherwise would be required to create its competing platform as the algorithms comprising
ROSS’s platform function in a manner analogous to those of Westlaw.
39.

Upon information and belief, unless enjoined by this Court, ROSS intends to

continue to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ copyrights and otherwise to profit from Plaintiffs’ works.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable damage. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at
law to redress all of the injuries that ROSS has caused, and intends to cause, by its conduct.

12

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13

Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable damage until ROSS’s actions alleged above are
enjoined by this Court.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)
40.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if fully set forth

41.

Westlaw, including, without limitation, the Westlaw Content, is original and

herein.

creative. As a result, it constitutes copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the United
States.
42.

Thomson Reuters is the owner of valid copyrights in Westlaw, and the Register of

Copyrights has issued certificates of registration for it. It has complied in all respects with 17
U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and has secured the exclusive rights and privileges in and to the copyrights
in Westlaw Content.
43.

By its actions, alleged above, ROSS has infringed and will continue to infringe

the Westlaw Content’s copyrights by, inter alia, reproducing and creating a derivative work
using the Westlaw Content without any authorization or other permission from Plaintiffs.
ROSS’s direct infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights has been deliberate, willful, and in utter
disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights.
44.

Moreover, as LegalEase clearly infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights by reproducing

and distributing the Westlaw Content to ROSS, ROSS is contributorily liable for materially and
knowingly contributing to LegalEase’s infringement.

Upon information and belief, ROSS

induced LegalEase to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights by directly contracting with LegalEase to
reproduce and distribute Westlaw content to ROSS. Moreover, it knew that LegalEase was

13

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14

unlawfully reproducing and distributing the copyrighted Westlaw Content as ROSS received tens
of thousands of documents from LegalEase containing the Westlaw Content or materials based
thereon.
45.

Further, ROSS is vicariously liable for LegalEase’s direct infringement. Upon

information and belief, ROSS had a financial interest in LegalEase’s direct infringement,
including, without limitation, significantly reducing the cost of development of its platform,
procuring investments in ROSS to which ROSS was not entitled, and avoiding the cost that
ROSS would have to pay to obtain this content. LegalEase was an agent of ROSS, and ROSS
exercised the requisite levels of control over the creation and distribution of the documents that
LegalEase sent to ROSS to support a finding of vicarious liability.
46.

As a direct and proximate result of ROSS’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have

been substantially and irreparably harmed in an amount not readily capable of determination.
Unless restrained by this Court, ROSS will cause further irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.
47.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief preventing ROSS, its agents and

employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with it, from engaging in any further
infringement of Westlaw.
48.

Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover from ROSS the damages, including

attorneys’ fees and costs, they have sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and
advantages obtained by ROSS as a result of its acts of infringement as alleged above. At present,
the amount of such damages, gains, profits, and advantages cannot be fully ascertained by
Plaintiffs, but will be established according to proof at trial. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover
statutory damages for ROSS’s willful infringement of its copyrights.

14

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15

COUNT II
Tortious Interference with Contract
49.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if fully set forth

50.

A valid contractual relationship between West and LegalEase existed for nearly

herein.

ten years prior to ROSS’s inducement of LegalEase to breach the Service Agreement.
51.

Upon information and belief, ROSS knew that LegalEase had a valid contract

with West—as apparent from the fact ROSS contracted with LegalEase to obtain the passwordprotected and copyrighted content from Westlaw that ROSS was explicitly denied access to—
and intentionally instructed LegalEase to act in breach of that contract without justification.
52.

Upon information and belief, ROSS knew that it would not be able to receive

permission from Thomson Reuters or West to access Westlaw, that Westlaw was secured behind
a paywall, and that LegalEase’s Service Agreement did not permit the naked reproduction and
distribution of copyrighted material from Westlaw.
53.

As a result of ROSS’s intentional and tortious interference with West’s contract

with LegalEase, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Thomson Reuters and West respectfully request judgment in
their favor and against Defendant ROSS as follows:
A.

Finding that ROSS has directly and indirectly infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights in
Westlaw;

B.

Finding that ROSS’s infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights was willful;

C.

Finding that ROSS has tortiously interfered with West’s contract with LegalEase;

15

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16

D.

Finding that there is a substantial likelihood that ROSS will continue to infringe
Plaintiffs’ copyrights unless enjoined from doing so;

E.

Issuing a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining ROSS, and its agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all persons, firms and
corporations acting in concert with it, from directly or indirectly infringing
Plaintiffs’ copyrights, including, but not limited to, offering ROSS’s legal
research product;

F.

Ordering the removal and destruction of Westlaw Content from ROSS’s legal
research product;

G.

Ordering ROSS to render a full and complete accounting to Thomson Reuters and
West for ROSS’s profits, gains, advantages and the value of the business
opportunities received from the foregoing acts of infringement;

H.

Entering judgment for Plaintiffs against ROSS for all damages suffered by
Plaintiffs and for any profits or gain by ROSS attributable to infringement of
Thomson Reuters’ copyrights in amounts to be determined at trial;

I.

Entering judgment for Plaintiffs against ROSS for statutory damages based upon
ROSS’s willful acts of infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504;

J.

Entering judgment for Plaintiffs against ROSS for punitive damages based on
ROSS’s tortious interference with the contractual relationship between LegalEase
and West in amounts to be determined at trial;

K.

Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursement of this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505;

16

Case 1:20-cv-00613-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/06/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17

L.

Awarding Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the fullest extent
available, on the foregoing; and

M.

Granting such other, further and different relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld

OF COUNSEL:
Dale M. Cendali
Joshua L. Simmons
Eric A. Loverro
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
[phone]
May 6, 2020

Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Michael J. Flynn (#5333)
1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomson Reuters
Enterprise Center GmbH and West Publishing
Corporation

17