Editing Openai/6924739c-2300-800e-9743-65c152c213f1 (section)

==== 1. U.S. norms about foreign decisions ====

===== a. Foreign cases are, at best, weak persuasive authority =====

In U.S. federal courts:
* Binding: U.S. Supreme Court, relevant circuit, and sometimes state courts on state law.
* Persuasive: other circuits, district courts, and then way down the ladder foreign courts.

So if you’re TR, you already have:
* Feist and its progeny on originality;
* U.S. cases recognizing copyright in headnotes / editorial material;
* A robust U.S. fair-use framework you can try to shape in your favor.

Adding CCH doesn’t change the binding law; it just gives the court extra reading and a chance to say “Canadian law is interesting but not controlling.” That’s a poor use of limited brief space unless the foreign case gives you something you can’t get from U.S. law.

===== b. Skepticism about foreign law, especially outside specialized areas =====

Some U.S. judges are openly wary of foreign citations except where international/foreign law is inherently at issue (e.g., treaties, international arbitration, maritime, choice-of-law questions).

Here you’re in a straight U.S. copyright / fair use case. Citing a Canadian Supreme Court decision could:
* Invite a “why are you bringing me Canadian law?” reaction.
* Signal (fairly or unfairly) that you don’t have enough domestic support.
* Distract from what you want to hammer: U.S. statutory language and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

For a big commercial plaintiff like TR, playing it doctrinally orthodox (U.S. sources only) is often safer.