Each Side Claims the Same Recent Ruling Supports Its Position in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Appeal

"The court found UpCodes' use transformative because its purpose - conveying what the law actually is - differed fundamentally from ASTM's purpose in publishing those same standards."

"In its supplemental brief, ROSS, which is represented by law firms White & Case and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, argues that UpCodes is essentially controlling and demands summary reversal of the district court's ruling against it on fair use."

"Both sides filed their supplemental briefs on May 11, and, not surprisingly, each argues that UpCodes supports its position. What is notable, though, is how different are their readings of the same opinion - and how directly the briefs crystallize the central dispute at the heart of this appeal."

"The filings came in response to an April 27 text order from the court's clerk directing the parties to file supplemental briefing "addressing what impact, if any" the court's UpCodes decision has on the appeal."

A long-running copyright dispute between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Intelligence continued after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on the effect of the UpCodes decision. The parties filed briefs on May 11 in response to an April 27 order asking what impact, if any, UpCodes has on the appeal. UpCodes involved a fair use ruling where a unanimous Third Circuit panel held that publishing technical building standards incorporated by reference into law likely constitutes fair use. ROSS argued that UpCodes is controlling and supports summary reversal of the district court’s fair use ruling against it. Thomson Reuters argued that UpCodes does not control and that the case remains distinguishable, crystallizing the central dispute over how fair use applies to the copying at issue.

Read at LawSites