A federal choose in Delaware has dismissed the declare by now-shuttered authorized analysis startup ROSS Intelligence that Thomson Reuters violated federal antitrust regulation by unlawfully tying its search device to its public regulation database with a view to preserve its dominance within the total marketplace for authorized search platforms.
The ruling brings an finish to ROSS’s counterclaims towards Thomson Reuters (TR) within the persevering with federal court docket litigation between the 2 events. Nonetheless to be determined within the case are TR’s claims that ROSS violated its copyrights by unlawfully copying TR’s authorized supplies with a view to use them to coach its personal AI-driven authorized analysis platform.
These claims had been scheduled to have gone to trial final month, however the trial was continued on the eleventh hour, leaving the copyright points but to be determined.
After TR first introduced its copyright lawsuit towards ROSS in Might 2020, ROSS filed a counterclaim asserting that TR was violating federal antitrust regulation by sustaining monopolistic and anticompetitive management over the authorized analysis market.
In 2022, Decide Leonard P. Stark — who beforehand presided over the case as a U.S. district choose in Delaware earlier than changing into a choose of the Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit– dismissed a portion of ROSS’s antitrust claims, however he allowed the tying declare to maneuver ahead.
That declare alleged that TR violated Part 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully tying its search device to its public regulation database with a view to preserve its dominance within the total marketplace for authorized search platforms.
See all my tales about this lawsuit.
Tying happens when a vendor exploits its management of a product to situation the sale of that product on the customer’s promise to additionally buy a distinct product.
However that earlier ruling got here earlier than the events had been in a position to flesh out the proof within the case by way of discovery and depositions and was based mostly on ROSS’s allegations in its counterclaim.
No Proof of Tying
Within the ruling issued Friday, the choose who changed Decide Stark within the case, third U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals Decide Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation within the U.S. District Court docket in Delaware, granted TR’s movement for abstract judgment on the tying declare, concluding that ROSS had didn’t again up its allegations with adequate proof.
ROSS’s concept was that the Westlaw caselaw database is a standalone product that many shoppers wish to purchase, however that TR will promote it solely when it’s packaged with Westlaw’s search instruments, which ROSS alleged was a separate product.
“In different phrases, Ross claims that Thomson Reuters forces individuals to purchase its Westlaw search instruments in the event that they wish to use its caselaw database,” Decide Bibas defined.
To determine an illegal tying association, Decide Bibas stated, ROSS must present that the merchandise are, the truth is, separate, after which must outline the related marketplace for these merchandise with a view to present an improper use of energy in that market.
ROSS failed to ascertain both of those info, Decide Bibas dominated.
On the difficulty of separate merchandise, ROSS failed to point out that there’s adequate client demand out there to buy these merchandise individually, insofar because it failed to point out that buyers had the truth is purchased the merchandise individually, had wished to purchase the merchandise individually, or would have wished to purchase the merchandise individually had TR not intimidated them from doing so.
A key to ROSS’s argument was that the case regulation TR now sells on-line was as soon as bought in books, as a product separate and distinct from Westlaw’s search instruments. That proved that the caselaw database was a separate product, ROSS asserted.
However the choose concluded that the analogy to books suffered from two flaws.
“First, Ross is incorrect that books had been bought with out search instruments,” Decide Bibas wrote. “True, books had been bought with out Westlaw’s present technological capability. But when we will analogize on-line authorized databases to printed authorized databases, we will additionally analogize on-line search instruments to printed search instruments: tables of contents, indices, and web page numbers. So its database was not bought unbundled from search instruments.”
Second, Decide Bibas continued, “the evolution from ebook search instruments (say, a desk of contents) to Westlaw’s digital search instruments (say, Boolean search phrases) is like how the horse-drawn carriage market developed into the automobile market. Simply as we now not use horse-drawn carriages for transportation (aside from enjoyable), few shoppers need caselaw separated from the subtle search instruments that make it digestible. A marketplace for public regulation in ebook type used to exist, however that doesn’t imply {that a} marketplace for separate caselaw nonetheless exists in a world with extra subtle search instruments.”
The opinion goes on to debate – and dismiss – different arguments ROSS raised to ascertain its tying argument, however the backside line is that the choose discovered inadequate proof to ascertain any of them.
Even when ROSS had established tying, the choose stated that its declare would nonetheless fail as a result of it had failed to ascertain proof that might outline the market that might be harmed by any tying association.
ROSS tried to do this, the choose stated, by way of the opinion of an knowledgeable witness, James Ratliff, an economist who makes a speciality of antitrust issues. However the choose stated that Ratliff’s knowledgeable opinion devoted just a few paragraphs to this difficulty and was so missing that it failed to fulfill the requirements for the admissibility of an knowledgeable opinion beneath beneath Federal Rule of Proof 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592–93 (1993).
“Dr. Ratliff basically has no methodology for outlining the related markets,” Decide Bibas stated. “He contains no math or financial modeling. He by no means analyzes potential opponents in any depth. All he does is make transient, conclusory assertions. That’s not sufficient.”
