Dissecting Judicial Reasoning in U.S. Copyright Damage Awards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09459v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:09:16 GMT
• Title: Dissecting Judicial Reasoning in U.S. Copyright Damage Awards
• Authors: Pei-Chi Lo, Thomas Y. Lu,
• Abstract summary: judicial reasoning in copyright damage awards poses a core challenge for computational legal analysis.<n>Federal courts follow the 1976 Copyright Act, their interpretations and factor weightings vary widely across jurisdictions.<n>This research introduces a novel discourse-based Large Language Model (LLM) methodology that integrates Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) with an agentic workflow.
• Score: 0.21485350418225238
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Judicial reasoning in copyright damage awards poses a core challenge for computational legal analysis. Although federal courts follow the 1976 Copyright Act, their interpretations and factor weightings vary widely across jurisdictions. This inconsistency creates unpredictability for litigants and obscures the empirical basis of legal decisions. This research introduces a novel discourse-based Large Language Model (LLM) methodology that integrates Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) with an agentic workflow to extract and quantify previously opaque reasoning patterns from judicial opinions. Our framework addresses a major gap in empirical legal scholarship by parsing opinions into hierarchical discourse structures and using a three-stage pipeline, i.e., Dataset Construction, Discourse Analysis, and Agentic Feature Extraction. This pipeline identifies reasoning components and extract feature labels with corresponding discourse subtrees. In analyzing copyright damage rulings, we show that discourse-augmented LLM analysis outperforms traditional methods while uncovering unquantified variations in factor weighting across circuits. These findings offer both methodological advances in computational legal analysis and practical insights into judicial reasoning, with implications for legal practitioners seeking predictive tools, scholars studying legal principle application, and policymakers confronting inconsistencies in copyright law.

Related papers

• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• Legal experts disagree with rationale extraction techniques for explaining ECtHR case outcome classification [9.334783986218232]
  Interpretability is critical for applications of large language models in the legal domain.<n>We propose a comparative analysis framework for model-agnostic interpretability techniques.<n>We show that the model's "reasons" for predicting a violation differ substantially from those of legal experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-18T14:03:17Z)
• Evaluating Legal Reasoning Traces with Legal Issue Tree Rubrics [49.3262123849242]
  We introduce LEGIT (LEGal Issue Trees), a novel large-scale (24K instances) expert-level legal reasoning dataset.<n>We convert court judgments into hierarchical trees of opposing parties' arguments and the court's conclusions, which serve as rubrics for evaluating the issue coverage and correctness of the reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T18:32:43Z)
• LawChain: Modeling Legal Reasoning Chains for Chinese Tort Case Analysis [30.18852139687054]
  We present a novel framework for explicitly modeling legal reasoning in the analysis of Chinese tort-related civil cases.<n>We first operationalize the legal reasoning processes used in tort analysis into the LawChain framework.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art large language models for their legal reasoning ability in civil tort contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T14:50:58Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• How Vital is the Jurisprudential Relevance: Law Article Intervened Legal Case Retrieval and Matching [31.378981566988063]
  Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query.<n>To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain.<n>We propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:29:07Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Prototype-Based Interpretability for Legal Citation Prediction [16.660004925391842]
  We design the task with parallels to the thought-process of lawyers, i.e., with reference to both precedents and legislative provisions. After initial experimental results, we refine the target citation predictions with the feedback of legal experts. We introduce a prototype architecture to add interpretability, achieving strong performance while adhering to decision parameters used by lawyers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T21:40:58Z)
• Exploiting Contrastive Learning and Numerical Evidence for Confusing Legal Judgment Prediction [46.71918729837462]
  Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss. We propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations. We further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:53:56Z)
• Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisions [43.09204050756282]
  We develop a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions. Third, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-12T08:59:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.