Key Points

1. On November 26, 2025, Fastcase Inc (Fastcase), an American legal publishing company founded in 1999, commenced an action against Alexi Technologies Inc (Alexi), a Canadian legal tech company that began as a research institution in 2017

   
   

2. In 2021, Fastcase and Alexi entered into a Data Licence Agreement (Agreement) where Fastcase would grant Alexi limited access to Fastcase’s proprietary and highly curated case law database

   
   

3. According to Fastcase, Alexi expanded its use of Fastcase data beyond the license’s narrow internal-use limitations, using that data to build and scale its own legal research platform—it began publishing and distributing Fastcase-sourced case law directly to its users in clear violation of the Agreement’s core restrictions

On November 26, 2025, Fastcase Inc (Fastcase), an American legal publishing company founded in 1999, commenced an action against Alexi Technologies Inc (Alexi), a Canadian legal tech company that began as a research institution in 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Background

It is first important to understand the context of this lawsuit. In particular, Fastcase spent decades building one of the industry’s most comprehensive and innovative legal research databases. In 2023, Fastcase merged with vLex LLC (vLex) and became part of the vLex Group, which was subsequently acquired by Clio, Inc (Clio), a company that is valued at $5 billion, on November 10, 2025. The acquisition was for $1 billion and was characterized as one of the most significant transactions in legal technology history.

On the other hand, Alexi initially operated with a small team of research attorneys who used a passage-retrieval AI system to help prepare legal memoranda for clients.

In 2021, Fastcase and Alexi entered into a Data Licence Agreement (Agreement) where Fastcase would grant Alexi limited access to Fastcase’s proprietary and highly curated case law database. From Fastcase’s perspective, the main term of the Agreement was that the licence was expressly restricted to internal research purposes. For example, it was limited to research that was performed by Alexi’s own staff lawyers in preparing client memoranda. And most importantly, Alexi agreed that it would not use Fastcase data for any commercial purpose, use the data to compete with Fastcase, or publish or distribute Fastcase data in any form.

This Agreement was important to Fastcase, given the number of years and the millions of dollars in investment to create one of the most sophisticated legal research databases in the industry. More precisely, Fastcase’s efforts involved extensive text and metadata tagging, specialized structuring into HTML, and proprietary formatting and harmonization processes that required significant technical expertise and sustained investment. Thus, Fastcase entrusted Alexi with access to this highly valuable, unique proprietary compilation solely for the narrow internal research purpose defined in the Agreement.

There was a time when Fastcase and Alexi considered entering into a partnership. In 2022, Alexi sought to integrate its passage-retrieval AI system with Fastcase’s database so that Alexi customers could directly access Fastcase case law. However, that partnership never materialized. Instead, in 2023, Fastcase proceeded with its merger with vLex and expanded its own research offerings. Yet, following the merger, Fastcase continued operating under the Fastcase name, and the Agreement with Alexi remained in full force and effect.

But then, according to Fastcase, Alexi began pivoting from occupying different roles in the legal-tech space into direct competition with Fastcase. That is, Fastcase says that Alexi expanded its use of Fastcase data beyond the license’s narrow internal-use limitations, using that data to build and scale its own legal research platform—it began publishing and distributing Fastcase-sourced case law directly to its users in clear violation of the Agreement’s core restrictions. What’s more, Alexi began holding itself out as a full-scale legal-research alternative to incumbent providers, including Fastcase.

According to Fastcase, Alexi shortcut the massive investment that was required to build a comprehensive commercial legal-research platform using the Fastcase data for the very commercial and competitive purposes that the Agreement expressly forbid.

That was not all: Fastcase believed that Alexi misused its intellectual property to bolster its own credibility and to suggest that there was an affiliation that did not exist. Further, Fastcase believed that Alexi misappropriated Fastcase’s compilation trade secrets. As a result, Fastcase says that Alexi has appropriated Fastcase’s decades of investment while simultaneously damaging Fastcase’s market position and goodwill.

But what Fastcase highlighted above all else was that Alexi never notified Fastcase of its changing service model, its expanding use of Fastcase data, or its intent to compete directly with Fastcase. It never even tried to renegotiate the Agreement to authorize its new uses. Instead, Alexi continued to rely on the internal-use license while using Fastcase data to build, train, power, and market a direct competitor.

When Fastcase discovered what Alexi was doing, vLex (acting on behalf of Fastcase) sent Alexi a written Notice of Material Breach in October, 2025. The notice explained that Alexi was using Fastcase data for improper commercial and competitive purposes in violation of the Agreement and demanded that Alexi cure its breach within 30 days, as required by the Agreement.

In response, Alexi denied any wrongdoing—in early November, 2025, Alexi’s counsel sent a letter rejecting Fastcase’s notice and actually admitted that Alexi had used the Fastcase Data to train and power its generative AI models, and that this did not constitute a violation of the Agreement. Moreover, the letter stated that the intention of the Agreement was never to preclude Alexi from using Fastcase’s data as source material for Alexi’s generative AI product. Rather, this was exactly why Alexi was paying Fastcase nearly a quarter million dollars annually.

Fastcase has terminated the Agreement, yet Alexi has continued to use the data.

What did Fastcase Claim Against Alexi?

Fastcase has made the following claims:

• Breach of contract. Alexi was granted only a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Fastcase’s data solely for Alexi’s internal research purposes. Fastcase performed its obligations under the Agreement by granting access to the data, but Alexi materially breached the Agreement by using the data for commercial and competitive purposes. Alexi has caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm to Fastcase, including loss of control over its proprietary compilation, erosion of competitive position, and impairment of contractual and intellectual property rights

  
  

• Trademark infringement. Fastcase has, at all relevant times, used the Fastcase trademarks in commerce in connection with its legal-research products, software, and related services. Its trademark registration remains active, valid, and in full force and effect. Without Fastcase’s consent or authorization, Alexi has used, reproduced, displayed, and distributed the Fastcase marks in its platform interfaces, public presentations, promotional materials, and commercial advertising. It even used the marks in ways that suggested that Alexi’s products were affiliated with Fastcase when no partnership was ever formed, and this constitutes infringement

  
  

• Misappropriation of trade secrets. Fastcase has devoted decades of engineering, editorial, and resource investment to build and refine its compilation. To maintain the secrecy and value of its compilation, Fastcase has required licensees and partners to enter confidentiality, non-use, and restricted-use agreements, including the Agreement with Alexi, and other technical and security measures. Alexi’s misappropriation included using Fastcase’s confidential compilation and metadata structure to train large-scale generative AI models, power user-facing legal-research features, generate outputs incorporating Fastcase data, and provide end users with direct access to the content of the Fastcase compilation. Fastcase has suffered and continues to suffer substantial harm, including loss of licensing revenue, competitive injury, market displacement, unjust enrichment to Alexi, erosion of goodwill, and diminution of the value of Fastcase’s proprietary compilation

  
  

• False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition. Without the consent of Fastcase, Alexi has used Fastcase’s marks in commerce on its platform interfaces, in product demonstrations, and in promotional and advertising materials. This falsely suggests to consumers, legal professionals, and industry participants that Fastcase endorses, sponsors, authorizes, or is affiliated with Alexi’s competing legal-research platform, even though no such relationship exists and Fastcase has expressly declined to form a partnership with Alexi. This constitutes a false designation of origin and a false or misleading representation of affiliation, connection, or sponsorship. This conduct is likely to cause and has already caused consumer confusion, mistake, and deception as to the origin of Alexi’s products, whether Alexi’s products incorporate or are powered by Fastcase’s proprietary services with authorization, and whether Fastcase has partnered with, approved, or is otherwise associated with Alexi

Consequently, Fastcase is asking for the following:

• Judgement for Fastcase

  
  

• A declaration of the breach of the Agreement

  
  

• A permanent injunction

  
  

• An award of compensatory damages

  
  

• An order of disgorgement requiring Alexi to account for and disgorge all revenues, profits, cost savings, and other benefits derived from its unauthorized use of Fastcase’s data

  
  

• An order requiring the return and destruction of all Fastcase data in Alexi’s possession, custody, or control, including all copies, derivatives, embeddings, model weights, datasets, or training artifacts incorporating or derived from Fastcase Data, together with a certification of complete purge and destruction

  
  

• Monetary relief for actual damages attributable to the infringement

What Can We Take from This Development?

At this point, we have not yet seen Alexi’s defence. Clearly, Alexi will likely argue that this was simply a misunderstanding of the Agreement. One question that will indeed arise during the proceedings is about whether there was a definition of “internal research purposes” set out in the Agreement. Could there actually be a way to argue that training an AI system was in the scope of the Agreement, and this was why Alexi was paying so much to Fastcase each year?

Although Alexi may have internally considered fully automating the creation of legal research memos, it may be difficult for it to show that it contemplated at the time of forming the Agreement that it would remove its internal research component entirely and begin publishing Fastcase case law directly to end users.

We will have to wait and see what happens.