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

==== 4. Litigation-strategy and briefing constraints ====

Even if CCH were modestly helpful, there are mundane but real strategic reasons to drop it.

===== a. Word limits and focus =====

Federal appellate briefs are constrained by strict word limits. Good appellate writing is about relentless prioritization:
* Lead with binding Supreme Court and circuit authority.
* Use persuasive authority sparingly.
* Avoid side-roads that force the court to learn a foreign doctrinal system.

A Canadian Supreme Court case that:
* Isn’t binding,
* Has mixed pro-publisher and pro-user language,
* Uses a different statutory scheme and doctrinal framing,

is exactly the kind of thing that can be cut in favor of doubling down on U.S. authorities (e.g., Google v. Oracle, Authors Guild v. Google, circuit decisions on databases and compilations, etc.).

===== b. Avoid giving the other side easy ammo =====

The moment TR cites CCH, they give ROSS:
* License to quote all of CCH’s user-rights, access-to-law, and research-friendly language back at the same court;
* A justification to bring in other foreign authorities (EU, India, Japan) on text and data mining and AI training, many of which are more sympathetic to training-based uses.

From TR’s perspective:
* They’d rather argue: “This case can be cleanly resolved under U.S. law; you don’t need to open the door to a global policy debate about AI training.”
* They know ROSS would happily say: “Once we’re doing comparative law, let’s talk about EU TDM exceptions and Japan’s AI-friendly statutes.”

So strategically, keeping the playground fenced to U.S. law is advantageous for TR.

===== c. Perception of cherry-picking foreign law =====

If you cite CCH only for “headnotes are copyright” and stay silent on its fair-dealing and access-to-law parts, you risk:
* A judge or clerk reading the rest and concluding you’re cherry-picking.
* Undermining your credibility on other citations.

Many experienced litigators are cautious about inviting that kind of “I read the whole case and you did not give me the full story” reaction—especially when the case is foreign and the court doesn’t know it already.