Third Circuit

The Third Circuit sits at the intersection of AI disclosure compliance and AI intellectual property law. While there's no circuit-wide disclosure mandate, the circuit is home to Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence — the most significant AI copyright case in legal technology — currently on appeal. That case alone makes this circuit essential watching for every legal technology company and the firms that advise them.

Covering Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit's district courts have taken a measured approach to AI disclosure. Pennsylvania has adopted interim AI policies, and Delaware's Chancery Court — the nation's most important corporate law venue — is developing its own framework.

Third Circuit's Position on AI Disclosure

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't issued a circuit-wide AI disclosure rule or advisory opinion. The appellate court has been focused on substantive AI legal questions rather than procedural disclosure requirements. But with Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence working its way through the circuit, the Third Circuit will inevitably need to engage with questions about how AI tools interact with the legal profession — and any ruling could have ripple effects on disclosure requirements.

Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence: The Appeal

This is the case to watch. Thomson Reuters sued ROSS Intelligence for allegedly using Westlaw data to train its AI legal research tool. The district court's rulings on fair use, data licensing, and AI training are all on appeal before the Third Circuit. The outcome will shape whether legal AI tools can be trained on proprietary legal databases — a question worth billions to the legal technology industry. For managing partners, this case matters beyond IP law: it could determine which AI research tools are legally viable and influence how courts view AI-generated legal analysis generally. If ROSS loses, expect tighter scrutiny of which AI tools lawyers can ethically use.

Pennsylvania's Interim AI Policy

Pennsylvania has been the most active Third Circuit state on AI disclosure. The state judiciary adopted an interim policy addressing AI use in court proceedings and filings. The policy requires attorneys to ensure the accuracy of AI-generated content and recommends disclosure when AI tools played a substantive role in drafting filings. Several judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have gone further, incorporating mandatory AI disclosure language into their standing orders. The Western District has been less prescriptive, but judges there have referenced the state-level interim policy in case management conferences.

Delaware and New Jersey District Courts

Delaware's federal district court hasn't adopted formal AI disclosure requirements, but the state's Chancery Court — which handles most major corporate litigation — has been developing guidelines. Given that Delaware corporate law drives a disproportionate share of complex commercial litigation, any AI policy from the Chancery Court will effectively set standards for transactional and corporate lawyers nationwide. New Jersey's federal district court has taken a hands-off approach, with no court-wide AI policy. Individual judges have addressed AI use in specific cases but haven't adopted systematic requirements.

Practical Compliance for Third Circuit Practitioners

Here's what firms filing in the Third Circuit should do: First, track the Thomson Reuters v. ROSS appeal closely — the ruling could change which AI tools are permissible for legal research. Second, comply with Pennsylvania's interim policy as a baseline across all Third Circuit filings, even when filing in Delaware or New Jersey. Third, in Delaware Chancery proceedings, anticipate that formal AI disclosure requirements are coming and start disclosing voluntarily now. Fourth, document your firm's AI tool licensing and data provenance — if the ROSS decision tightens requirements around AI training data, you'll need to demonstrate your tools are compliant. Fifth, for patent and IP matters in Delaware, be especially careful with AI-assisted claim construction and prior art searches, since these are the exact workflows courts will scrutinize.

The Bottom Line: The Third Circuit's biggest impact on AI disclosure will come through the Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence appeal, not through procedural rules. Pennsylvania's interim policy sets the practical standard, but every firm in this circuit should be watching the ROSS case — it'll shape which AI tools lawyers can legally use.