Judge Richard Andrews

Judge Richard Andrews of the District of Delaware presided over Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence, the first major case to address whether AI training on copyrighted legal content constitutes fair use. His handling of that case positioned him as a key judicial voice on AI and intellectual property—and his courtroom expectations reflect the depth of knowledge he gained.

Delaware's federal court handles a massive share of corporate and patent litigation, and Judge Andrews' experience with AI copyright questions means attorneys filing before him should expect informed scrutiny of both AI-related claims and AI-assisted legal practice. He's seen firsthand what happens when AI meets copyright law.

Judge Andrews' AI Background: Thomson Reuters v. ROSS

Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence was a groundbreaking case in which Thomson Reuters alleged that ROSS Intelligence trained its AI legal research tool on Westlaw content without authorization. Judge Andrews presided over this case through key rulings on fair use, the nature of AI training, and the boundaries of copyright protection for legal databases. His rulings addressed whether AI companies can legally use copyrighted content to train their models—questions that have since become central to cases like NYT v. OpenAI and Silverman v. Meta. This experience gives Judge Andrews a working understanding of AI training processes that few judges possess.

AI Disclosure Expectations in Judge Andrews' Courtroom

Judge Andrews expects attorneys to comply with emerging federal standards for AI disclosure. This means disclosing generative AI use in preparing filings, verifying all citations and factual assertions through traditional research, and being transparent about the role AI played in the work product. His Thomson Reuters experience means he understands how AI processes legal text at a granular level—including the difference between AI that retrieves existing information and AI that generates new text based on patterns. This distinction informs his expectations: traditional legal research is fine, but generative AI use requires disclosure.

The Delaware Federal Court Context

The District of Delaware is one of the busiest federal courts for corporate litigation, patent cases, and intellectual property disputes. It handles a disproportionate share of cases because many companies are incorporated in Delaware. This means Judge Andrews sees a high volume of sophisticated litigation where AI-assisted drafting is increasingly standard. Patent briefs, claim construction arguments, and corporate governance disputes all lend themselves to AI assistance—and Judge Andrews expects attorneys in these technically demanding cases to use AI responsibly and transparently.

Compliance Steps for Filing Before Judge Andrews

Step 1: Familiarize yourself with Judge Andrews' standing orders and any local rules addressing AI disclosure. Step 2: If using generative AI, prepare a clear disclosure statement identifying the tool and its contribution. Step 3: Verify all citations—especially in patent cases where technical accuracy is critical. Step 4: Be particularly careful with AI-generated patent claim analysis or prior art research, as these are areas where AI hallucination is common. Step 5: If your case involves AI or copyright issues, expect heightened scrutiny and prepare accordingly.

Judge Andrews in the National AI Jurisprudence Landscape

Judge Andrews' Thomson Reuters v. ROSS rulings were among the earliest judicial treatments of AI training and fair use, predating the wave of AI copyright litigation that exploded in 2023-2024. His early engagement with these questions gives his perspectives particular weight. While judges like Stein (NYT v. OpenAI) and Chhabria (Silverman v. Meta) are working through similar issues with larger stakes, Judge Andrews was there first. The District of Delaware hasn't adopted a formal district-wide AI policy, but Judge Andrews' individual approach reflects the sophistication you'd expect from a judge who helped define this area of law.

The Bottom Line: Before filing in Judge Andrews' courtroom, verify all citations with particular attention to technical accuracy, prepare AI disclosures that distinguish between traditional research and generative AI, and remember that he understood AI training processes before most judges had heard of ChatGPT.