AI_core/Legal_comprehension.ipynb

{
 "cells": [
  {
   "cell_type": "markdown",
   "metadata": {},
   "source": [
    "# Initial Pipeline\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 25,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stderr",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "I0000 00:00:1746384710.213198   41065 fork_posix.cc:75] Other threads are currently calling into gRPC, skipping fork() handlers\n"
     ]
    },
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "Collecting langchain-groq\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_groq-0.3.2-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (2.6 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-groq) (0.3.58)\n",
      "Collecting groq<1,>=0.4.1 (from langchain-groq)\n",
      "  Downloading groq-0.24.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (15 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: anyio<5,>=3.5.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (4.7.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: distro<2,>=1.7.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (1.9.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: httpx<1,>=0.23.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (0.28.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pydantic<3,>=1.9.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (2.10.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: sniffio in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (1.3.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: typing-extensions<5,>=4.10 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (4.12.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langsmith<0.4,>=0.1.125 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (0.2.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: tenacity!=8.4.0,<10.0.0,>=8.1.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (8.5.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: jsonpatch<2.0,>=1.33 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (1.33)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: PyYAML>=5.3 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (6.0.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: packaging<25,>=23.2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (24.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: idna>=2.8 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from anyio<5,>=3.5.0->groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (3.7)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: certifi in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from httpx<1,>=0.23.0->groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (2024.8.30)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: httpcore==1.* in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from httpx<1,>=0.23.0->groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (1.0.7)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: h11<0.15,>=0.13 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from httpcore==1.*->httpx<1,>=0.23.0->groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (0.14.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: jsonpointer>=1.9 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from jsonpatch<2.0,>=1.33->langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (2.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: orjson<4.0.0,>=3.9.14 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langsmith<0.4,>=0.1.125->langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (3.10.12)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: requests<3,>=2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langsmith<0.4,>=0.1.125->langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (2.32.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: requests-toolbelt<2.0.0,>=1.0.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langsmith<0.4,>=0.1.125->langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (1.0.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: annotated-types>=0.6.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from pydantic<3,>=1.9.0->groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (0.7.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pydantic-core==2.27.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from pydantic<3,>=1.9.0->groq<1,>=0.4.1->langchain-groq) (2.27.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: charset-normalizer<4,>=2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from requests<3,>=2->langsmith<0.4,>=0.1.125->langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (3.3.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: urllib3<3,>=1.21.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from requests<3,>=2->langsmith<0.4,>=0.1.125->langchain-core<1.0.0,>=0.3.49->langchain-groq) (2.2.2)\n",
      "Downloading langchain_groq-0.3.2-py3-none-any.whl (15 kB)\n",
      "Downloading groq-0.24.0-py3-none-any.whl (127 kB)\n",
      "Installing collected packages: groq, langchain-groq\n",
      "Successfully installed groq-0.24.0 langchain-groq-0.3.2\n",
      "Note: you may need to restart the kernel to use updated packages.\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "pip install langchain-groq"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 2,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "import os\n",
    "os.environ[\"GROQ_API_KEY\"] = \"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\"\n",
    "\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 54,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "from langchain_groq import ChatGroq\n",
    "llm = ChatGroq(temperature=0, model_name=\"compound-beta\")"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": []
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 2,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stderr",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "/home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages/tqdm/auto.py:21: TqdmWarning: IProgress not found. Please update jupyter and ipywidgets. See https://ipywidgets.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_install.html\n",
      "  from .autonotebook import tqdm as notebook_tqdm\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "from langchain_google_genai import ChatGoogleGenerativeAI\n",
    "\n",
    "llm = ChatGoogleGenerativeAI(\n",
    "    model=\"gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05\",\n",
    "    temperature=0,\n",
    "    max_tokens=None,\n",
    "    timeout=None,\n",
    "    max_retries=2,\n",
    "    # other params...\n",
    ")"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 55,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "messages = [\n",
    "    (\n",
    "        \"system\",\n",
    "        \"You are a helpful assistant that translates English to French. Translate the user sentence.\",\n",
    "    ),\n",
    "    (\"human\", \"I love programming.\"),\n",
    "]\n",
    "ai_msg = llm.invoke(messages)\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 56,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "J'adore programmer.\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "print(ai_msg.content)"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "# jina_539a9b9aa514498a809af0c48ea77202-c281brL4FawrXf7YzwHJaSalpcT"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 109,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "{\"id\":\"1746388011292\",\"object\":\"chat.completion\",\"created\":1746388011,\"model\":\"jina-deepsearch-v1\",\"system_fingerprint\":\"fp_1746388011292\",\"choices\":[{\"index\":0,\"message\":{\"role\":\"assistant\",\"content\":\"The legal landscape surrounding AI-generated content, while still in its formative stages, is being actively shaped by key legal principles and emerging case law concerning copyright infringement. While definitive legal precedents remain scarce due to the technology's novelty, ongoing litigation and evolving legal opinions provide critical guidance.\\n\\n**Core Legal Principles and Tests Under Judicial Scrutiny**\\n\\n*   **Substantial Similarity**: Courts are applying the well-established \\\"substantial similarity\\\" test to determine whether AI-generated outputs infringe upon existing copyrighted works. This analysis hinges on whether an AI-generated work is strikingly similar to a copyrighted work, such that an average person would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the original. The application of this test in the context of AI-generated content presents novel challenges. Traditional copyright law typically addresses direct copying or close paraphrasing. However, AI models learn patterns and styles, potentially generating outputs that evoke the overall \\\"feel\\\" of an original work without directly replicating it. Courts are therefore grappling with adapting the substantial similarity test to account for this more indirect form of appropriation. For example, in cases involving AI-generated art, the central question is whether the AI has merely learned the style of an artist or has created a derivative work that infringes on the copyright of specific artworks. Expert testimony explaining how AI models learn and generate content is becoming increasingly crucial in these cases to inform judicial determinations.\\n\\n*   **Fair Use Doctrine**The fair use doctrine is a central consideration in AI copyright litigation, particularly concerning the use of copyrighted material to train AI models. Courts consider the four statutory factors outlined in 17 U.S.C. § 107 (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The argument that training AI models constitutes fair use is frequently litigated. AI developers often argue that training is a transformative use because it employs copyrighted material to create something new—an AI model—rather than directly competing with the original work. Copyright holders, however, counter that the unauthorized use of their works for AI training deprives them of potential licensing revenue and undermines their control over their creative output. The Supreme Court's decision in*::Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith*, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) (concerning the fair use of a photograph of Prince), has significantly influenced this debate, emphasizing the importance of whether the secondary use is truly transformative and does not unduly harm the market for the original work.\\n\\n*   **Human Authorship Requirement**: Copyright law protects works of human creation. The U.S. Copyright Office has unequivocally stated that works created solely by AI are not copyrightable, as they lack the requisite human authorship. This principle raises complex questions about AI-assisted creation, where a human provides prompts or edits AI-generated outputs. Courts must assess the level of human input necessary for copyright protection. If an AI generates a work entirely autonomously, without significant human input, it is ineligible for copyright protection. [^1]However, if a human significantly modifies or arranges AI-generated elements, the human-authored aspects may be copyrightable. The Copyright Office's guidance on AI-generated content clarifies that copyright protection extends only to the human-authored aspects of a work, not the AI-generated elements themselves. This distinction is critical in determining the scope of copyright protection in AI-assisted creations.[^2]\\n\\n**Significant Cases and Ongoing Lawsuits**\\n\\n*   **Lawsuits Against AI Music Generators (e.g., Suno, Udio)**: Several major record labels have initiated legal action against AI music generation companies, such as Suno and Udio, alleging copyright infringement. The core argument is that these companies unlawfully used copyrighted music to train their AI models without obtaining the necessary permissions. Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that the AI-generated outputs closely resemble existing songs, thereby infringing on their copyrights. [^3]The defense in these cases often centers on the fair use doctrine, arguing that the AI's use of the music is transformative. A key legal question is whether the AI-generated music directly competes with the original songs and harms the market for those songs. The record labels assert that the AI-generated music serves as a substitute for licensed music, depriving them of substantial revenue.\\n\\n*   **Class Action Lawsuit Against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt**: A class-action lawsuit has been filed by artists against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, alleging copyright infringement related to the unauthorized use of their copyrighted images to train AI models. The artists claim that their works were used without their consent and that the AI-generated images directly compete with their original works. [^4]The defense maintains that training AI models constitutes fair use and that the AI-generated images are not substantially similar to the artists' original works. The plaintiffs argue that the AI models have learned and are replicating their unique styles, effectively creating derivative works without permission. This case is pivotal in testing the boundaries of fair use in the context of AI training data and determining the extent to which AI-generated outputs can infringe on an artist's distinctive style.\\n\\n*   ***The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft****:The New York Times* has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging that they unlawfully used millions of *NYT* articles to train their AI models without permission. *The Times* argues that this unauthorized use undermines its established business model and allows users to circumvent its paywall, thereby diminishing its subscription revenue. [^5]OpenAI and Microsoft are expected to assert a fair use defense, claiming that their AI models transform the articles into something new and different. The case also involves allegations of the removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI), with *The Times* contending that this was intentionally done to conceal the alleged copyright infringement. The legal arguments will likely focus on whether the AI models' use of the articles is indeed transformative and whether it demonstrably harms the market for *The NYT*'s copyrighted content.[^6]\\n\\n*   ***Getty Images v. Stability AI***: Getty Images has initiated legal proceedings against Stability AI in the UK, alleging that Stability AI illegally collected millions of Getty's copyrighted photographs to train its Stable Diffusion AI model. Getty argues that the AI-generated photographs bear its trademarks and can be traced back to their original sources, even including approximations of Getty's distinctive watermarks. [^7]Stability AI contends that it has not infringed any copyrights because it did not directly copy any specific works. The High Court has permitted Getty's claims to proceed to trial, indicating that there are substantial merits to the claims. This case underscores the critical issue of unauthorized use of copyrighted images for AI training and the potential for AI-generated outputs to infringe on established trademarks and watermarks.[^8]\\n\\n**Broader Implications for AI Development and Creative Industries**\\n\\nThe legal precedents emerging from these landmark cases will have a profound impact on the future trajectory of both AI development and creative industries. If courts adopt a broad interpretation of fair use, allowing AI training on copyrighted material, it could significantly accelerate AI development by providing access to vast datasets. [^9]However, such an approach could also harm creative industries by diminishing incentives for creators to produce original works, as their content could be freely used for AI training without compensation. Conversely, if courts narrowly construe fair use, it could strengthen the rights of copyright holders but potentially stifle AI innovation by limiting access to essential training data. A balanced and nuanced approach is therefore essential to foster both AI innovation and creative expression. This balance may necessitate the development of comprehensive licensing frameworks that allow AI developers to use copyrighted material for training purposes in exchange for fair and equitable compensation to copyright holders. The ultimate outcomes of these pivotal cases will shape the legal landscape for AI-generated content and fundamentally influence the future of copyright law in the digital age.[^10]\\n\\n| Aspect | United States | United Kingdom |\\n| --- | --- | --- |\\n| Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works | Not copyrightable if solely generated by AI; requires human authorship. | Potentially copyrightable under Section 9(3) of the CDPA, even without significant human input. |\\n| Fair Use Doctrine | Frequently invoked in cases involving AI training data; transformative use is a key consideration. | Relevance is similar to the US, but the interpretation of Section 9(3) provides a distinct framework. |\\n| Human Authorship | Critical for copyright protection; courts focus on the extent of human involvement. | May not be as critical due to Section 9(3); the person making necessary arrangements can be considered the author. |\\n\\n\\nThe legal battles surrounding AI-generated content are not merely academic exercises; they are high-stakes contests that will determine the balance of power between technology companies and creative artists. The outcomes will dictate the future of digital content creation, the economic viability of creative professions, and the pace of technological innovation. The courts, in their wisdom (or lack thereof), will set the rules of engagement for this new era, and their decisions will reverberate across industries for decades to come.\\n\\n\\n\\n[^1]: In the UK in Getty Images v Stability AI Stability AI is the target of a lawsuit by Getty Images before the High Court Getty claims that millions of its copyrighted photos were illegally collected by Stability AI to train its Stable Diffusion AI model Getty makes the case that Stable Diffusion s outputs do more than just copy Getty s artwork they bear its trademarks as well According to Getty the AI generated photos can be traced to their original sources [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\\n\\n[^2]: Stability AI maintains that it has not infringed any copyrights as it did not directly copy any specific works The High Court has allowed Getty s claims to proceed to trial after dismissing Stability AI s request for summary judgment which means the claims will proceed to be heard at trial The court noted that there are substantial merits to the claims This is particularly true regarding the location of the training activities It is also important to determine whether they occurred in the UK [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\\n\\n[^3]: These lawsuits accuse Suno and Udio of infringing on copyrights by using AI to replicate music from various artists without authorization [Legal Storm Ahead: Major Labels Sue AI Music Generators](https://thebeckagefirm.com/legal-storm-ahead-major-labels-sue-ai-music-generators)\\n\\n[^4]: Filed in 2023 in the Southern District of New York the news company filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for using its articles unlawfully to train AI models It contends that this use violates its copyright and undermines its business model by allowing bypass of paywall According to the lawsuit the Times earnings and journalistic integrity are seriously threatened by OpenAI s capacity to produce outputs that closely resemble or imitate its material [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\\n\\n[^5]: The outcomes of these cases will significantly shape the future of copyright law concerning artificial intelligence They will establish new norms and expectations for both content creators and AI developers As courts navigate these complex issues new legislation could emerge This legislation may balance innovation with intellectual property rights Such changes would foster an environment where technological advancement does not come at the expense of creators rights [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\\n\\n[^6]: In another case a group of artists brought a class action lawsuit against Stability AI Midjourney and DeviantArt for copyright infringement [Who Really Owns AI Art? What Businesses Need To Know - Forbes](https://forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/04/16/who-really-owns-ai-art-what-businesses-need-to-know-about-generative-ai-and-intellectual-ownership)\\n\\n[^7]: Here too the defense taken is that of the fair use doctrine Another pertinent issue that arose was the removal of the Copyright Management Information CMI that encompasses the copyright notice title and other identifying information terms and conditions of use and identifying numbers or symbols referring to the CMI The Times claimed that the removal of CMI was done intentionally to hide the copyright infringement To prove fair use defense OpenAI recently sought to compel the production of 1 the Times s use of nonparties generative artificial intelligence Gen AI [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\\n\\n[^8]: However i n these cases copyright will only protect the human authored aspects of the work which are independent of and do not affect the copyright status of the AI generated material itself [Copyright Ownership of Generative AI Outputs Varies Around the](https://cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-01-29-copyright-ownership-of-generative-ai-outputs-varies-around-the-world)\\n\\n[^9]: The legal landscape is poised for transformation as these cases unfold This could lead to more stringent regulations around data usage in AI training It might also lead to clearer definitions of fair use that reflect the unique challenges posed by emerging technologies [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\\n\\n[^10]: It also states that if a human simply types in a prompt and a machine generates complex written visual or musical works in response the traditional elements of authorship have been executed by AI a non human Therefore it is not protected by copyright [AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law: What We Know - Built In](https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright)\",\"type\":\"text\",\"annotations\":[{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI\",\"exactQuote\":\"In the UK in Getty Images v Stability AI Stability AI is the target of a lawsuit by Getty Images before the High Court Getty claims that millions of its copyrighted photos were illegally collected by Stability AI to train its Stable Diffusion AI model Getty makes the case that Stable Diffusion s outputs do more than just copy Getty s artwork they bear its trademarks as well According to Getty the AI generated photos can be traced to their original sources \",\"url\":\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 8, 2025\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI\",\"exactQuote\":\"Stability AI maintains that it has not infringed any copyrights as it did not directly copy any specific works The High Court has allowed Getty s claims to proceed to trial after dismissing Stability AI s request for summary judgment which means the claims will proceed to be heard at trial The court noted that there are substantial merits to the claims This is particularly true regarding the location of the training activities It is also important to determine whether they occurred in the UK \",\"url\":\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 8, 2025\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Legal Storm Ahead: Major Labels Sue AI Music Generators\",\"exactQuote\":\"These lawsuits accuse Suno and Udio of infringing on copyrights by using AI to replicate music from various artists without authorization \",\"url\":\"https://thebeckagefirm.com/legal-storm-ahead-major-labels-sue-ai-music-generators\",\"dateTime\":\"2024-08-12T13:59:57.000Z\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI\",\"exactQuote\":\" Filed in 2023 in the Southern District of New York the news company filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for using its articles unlawfully to train AI models It contends that this use violates its copyright and undermines its business model by allowing bypass of paywall According to the lawsuit the Times earnings and journalistic integrity are seriously threatened by OpenAI s capacity to produce outputs that closely resemble or imitate its material \",\"url\":\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 8, 2025\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI\",\"exactQuote\":\"The outcomes of these cases will significantly shape the future of copyright law concerning artificial intelligence They will establish new norms and expectations for both content creators and AI developers As courts navigate these complex issues new legislation could emerge This legislation may balance innovation with intellectual property rights Such changes would foster an environment where technological advancement does not come at the expense of creators rights \",\"url\":\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 8, 2025\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Who Really Owns AI Art? What Businesses Need To Know - Forbes\",\"exactQuote\":\"In another case a group of artists brought a class action lawsuit against Stability AI Midjourney and DeviantArt for copyright infringement\",\"url\":\"https://forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/04/16/who-really-owns-ai-art-what-businesses-need-to-know-about-generative-ai-and-intellectual-ownership\",\"dateTime\":\"Apr 16, 2024\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI\",\"exactQuote\":\"Here too the defense taken is that of the fair use doctrine Another pertinent issue that arose was the removal of the Copyright Management Information CMI that encompasses the copyright notice title and other identifying information terms and conditions of use and identifying numbers or symbols referring to the CMI The Times claimed that the removal of CMI was done intentionally to hide the copyright infringement To prove fair use defense OpenAI recently sought to compel the production of 1 the Times s use of nonparties generative artificial intelligence Gen AI \",\"url\":\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 8, 2025\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Copyright Ownership of Generative AI Outputs Varies Around the\",\"exactQuote\":\"However i n these cases copyright will only protect the human authored aspects of the work which are independent of and do not affect the copyright status of the AI generated material itself \",\"url\":\"https://cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-01-29-copyright-ownership-of-generative-ai-outputs-varies-around-the-world\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 29, 2024\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI\",\"exactQuote\":\"The legal landscape is poised for transformation as these cases unfold This could lead to more stringent regulations around data usage in AI training It might also lead to clearer definitions of fair use that reflect the unique challenges posed by emerging technologies \",\"url\":\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"dateTime\":\"Jan 8, 2025\"}},{\"type\":\"url_citation\",\"url_citation\":{\"title\":\"AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law: What We Know - Built In\",\"exactQuote\":\"It also states that if a human simply types in a prompt and a machine generates complex written visual or musical works in response the traditional elements of authorship have been executed by AI a non human Therefore it is not protected by copyright \",\"url\":\"https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright\",\"dateTime\":\"2024-09-18T05:00:00.000Z\"}}]},\"logprobs\":null,\"finish_reason\":\"stop\"}],\"usage\":{\"prompt_tokens\":177947,\"completion_tokens\":76178,\"total_tokens\":197161},\"visitedURLs\":[\"https://law.com/newyorklawjournal/2025/02/10/copyright-infringement-by-generative-ai-tools-under-us-and-uk-law-common-threads-and-contrasting-approaches\",\"https://clm.com/copyright-infringement-by-generative-ai-tools-under-us-and-uk-law-common-threads-and-contrasting-approaches\",\"https://pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/how-a-us-ai-ruling-could-influence-uk-copyright-policy\",\"https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-ethics\",\"https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/responsible-ai\",\"https://lowenstein.com/search\",\"https://lowenstein.com/news-insights\",\"https://nationalcentreforai.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2024/03/11/copyright-and-concerns-arising-around-generative-ai\",\"https://cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district-court-confirms-human-authorship-requirement-sets-copyright-boundary-for-ai-generated-works\",\"https://cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-07-24-california-federal-court-clears-path-for-software-developers-potential-employment-discrimination-liability\",\"https://reuters.com/legal/music-labels-ai-lawsuits-create-new-copyright-puzzle-us-courts-2024-08-03\",\"https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Andersen_et_al_v._Stability_AI.pdf\",\"https://lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Notice-of-civil-claim.pdf\",\"https://crowell.com/a/web/7QtNejMH1FSM1n5Ddt6cdU/6-ai-cases-and-what-they-mean-for-copyright-law.pdf\",\"https://jw.com/news/insights-federal-court-ai-copyright-decision\",\"https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Letter-re-Crime-Fraud-Exception-Dec-20-2024.pdf\",\"https://debevoise.com/insights/publications/2025/02/an-early-win-for-copyright-owners-in-ai-cases-as\",\"https://crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/major-american-music-labels-sue-generative-ai-music-platforms-in-first-case-of-its-kind-over-ai-audio\",\"https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/28/uks-short-lived-dream-for-a-code-of-practice-on-genai-and-copyright-law\",\"https://ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/04/ai-and-the-copyright-liability-overhang-a-brief-summary-of-the-current-state-of-ai-related\",\"https://forbes.com/sites/roomykhan/2024/10/04/ai-training-data-dilemma-legal-experts-argue-for-fair-use\",\"https://techpolicy.press/copyright-fair-use-regulatory-approaches-in-ai-content-generation\",\"https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem\",\"https://gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence\",\"https://iapp.org/news/a/generative-ai-and-intellectual-property-copyright-implications-for-ai-inputs-outputs\",\"https://techpolicy.press/search\",\"https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Stability-AI-Answer-to-Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf\",\"https://theverge.com/2023/12/27/24016212/new-york-times-openai-microsoft-lawsuit-copyright-infringement\",\"https://cardozoaelj.com/2024/10/11/the-rise-of-ai-in-music-legal-challenges-and-copyright-concerns\",\"https://linkedin.com/pulse/ai-music-next-copyright-claims-legal-challenges-ahead-townsend-abife\",\"https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/rebooting-copyright-how-the-uk-can-be-a-global-leader-in-the-arts-and-ai\",\"https://thebeckagefirm.com/legal-storm-ahead-major-labels-sue-ai-music-generators\",\"https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec2023.pdf\",\"https://livelaw.in/articles/openai-vs-the-new-york-times-a-pioneering-legal-battle-over-ai-and-copyright-252848\",\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44163-023-00088-y\",\"https://cullenllp.com/blog/ai-and-copyright-law-recent-developments-in-ai-generating-infringement-suits\",\"https://pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/record-labels-lawsuit-copyright-infringement-generative-ai-music.html\",\"https://btlj.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/0003-36-4Quang.pdf\",\"https://courtlistener.com/docket/67569326/kadrey-v-meta-platforms-inc\",\"https://npr.org/2023/11/16/1213588978/some-authors-are-suing-openai-will-it-backfire\",\"https://newsroom.gettyimages.com/en/getty-images/getty-images-statement\",\"https://linkedin.com/company/3763094\",\"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=72482&doclang=en\",\"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cv1564-24=\",\"https://jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-overlooked-claim-of-the-new-york-4333380\",\"https://npr.org/2023/08/16/1194202562/new-york-times-considers-legal-action-against-openai-as-copyright-tensions-swirl\",\"https://reddit.com/r/musicians/comments/1dpu4ip/ai_music_lawsuit\",\"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/23/16-15469.pdf\",\"https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/02/29/is-generative-ai-fair-use-of-copyright-works-nyt-v-openai\",\"https://spicyip.com/2024/11/the-beginning-of-ai-copyright-litigation-in-india-ani-vs-openai-in-dhc-tomorrow.html\",\"https://marketingaiinstitute.com/blog/suno-udio-lawsuits\",\"https://nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-warhol-foundation-copyright-fight-prince-images-rcna64624\",\"https://scoredetect.com/blog/posts/can-you-copyright-ai-art-legal-insights\",\"https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2024/11/Raw-Story-Order.pdf?_gl=1*16v77qb*_ga*MjEzODQyNjQ5Ny4xNzMzNDY5NDk4*_ga_G57FX3W4N3*MTczMzQ2OTQ5Ny4xLjAuMTczMzQ2OTQ5Ny4wLjAuMA..\",\"https://bakerlaw.com/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions\",\"https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-partners-openai-and-leads-way-bring-ai-generated\",\"https://novagraaf.com/en/insights/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-who-owns-ai-generated-images\",\"https://pec.ac.uk/blog_entries/copyright-protection-in-ai-generated-works\",\"https://stablediffusionlitigation.com/pdf/00201/1-1-stable-diffusion-complaint.pdf\",\"https://nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/us-record-labels-are-suing-ai-music-generators-alleging-copyright-infr-rcna158660\",\"https://commlawgroup.com/2023/mitigate-copyright-infringement-liability-exposure-for-generative-ai-output\",\"https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-high-court-open-ai-response-copyright-infringement-suit-ani-9677432\",\"https://forbes.com/sites/virginieberger/2025/03/15/the-ai-copyright-battle-why-openai-and-google-are-pushing-for-fair-use\",\"https://aoshearman.com/insights/ownership-of-ai-generated-content-in-the-uk\",\"https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/new-york-times-vs-openai-is-there-a-case-for-copyright-9253859\",\"https://canadianlawyermag.com/resources/legal-technology/canlii-sues-ai-legal-assistant-caseway-ai-for-copyright-infringement/389633\",\"https://reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copyrights-test-new-technology-2023-02-22\",\"https://twitter.com/builtin\",\"https://commission.europa.eu/news/ai-act-enters-force-2024-08-01_en\",\"https://houstonlawreview.org/article/92126-copyright-safety-for-generative-ai\",\"https://riaa.com/record-companies-bring-landmark-cases-for-responsible-ai-againstsuno-and-udio-in-boston-and-new-york-federal-courts-respectively\",\"https://pbwt.com/publications/ai-training-using-copyrighted-works-ruled-not-fair-use\",\"https://federalregister.gov/d/2023-05321/p-52\",\"https://instagram.com/builtin\",\"https://copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf\",\"https://cookiepedia.co.uk/giving-consent-to-cookies\",\"https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf\",\"https://facebook.com/builtinhq\",\"https://onetrust.com/products/cookie-consent\",\"https://arl.org/blog/training-generative-ai-models-on-copyrighted-works-is-fair-use\",\"https://musicbusinessworldwide.com/openai-just-won-a-copyright-battle-brought-by-two-news-outlets-what-could-this-mean-for-the-music-industrys-lawsuits-against-ai-firms\",\"https://blg.com/en/insights/2023/02/who-owns-ai-generated-art-a-primer-on-canadian-copyright-and-ai-artwork\",\"https://reddit.com/r/GPT3/comments/170os6m/openais_official_justification_to_why_training\",\"https://buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/ai-art-generators-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney\",\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.238.0_1.pdf\",\"https://originality.ai/blog/fair-use-and-ai\",\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_and_copyright\",\"https://albanylaw.edu/\",\"https://law.vanderbilt.edu/\",\"https://theverge.com/2021/9/29/22701167/bev-standing-tiktok-lawsuit-settles-text-to-speech-voice\",\"https://ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt\",\"https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents\",\"https://twitter.com/CooleyLLP\",\"https://employers.builtin.com/careers\",\"https://federalregister.gov/d/2023-05321/p-56\",\"https://cnbc.com/2024/01/05/microsoft-openai-sued-over-copyright-infringement-by-authors.html\",\"https://sdnyblog.com/files/2024/11/23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW-NYT-v.-Microsoft-Opinion.pdf\",\"https://guides.lib.usf.edu/c.php?g=1315087&p=9690822\",\"https://rpclegal.com/thinking/artificial-intelligence/ai-guide/generative-ai-addressing-copyright\",\"https://vossius.eu/fileadmin/news_docs/Getty_Images_v_Stability_AI_Ltd.pdf\"],\"readURLs\":[\"https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922\",\"https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright\",\"https://cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-01-29-copyright-ownership-of-generative-ai-outputs-varies-around-the-world\",\"https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai\",\"https://lowenstein.com/news-insights/videos-listing/when-does-ai-violate-copyright-law-recent-cases-and-new-causes-of-action-1\"],\"numURLs\":121}\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "import requests\n",
    "import json\n",
    "\n",
    "url = 'https://deepsearch.jina.ai/v1/chat/completions'\n",
    "headers = {\n",
    "    'Content-Type': 'application/json'\n",
    "}\n",
    "data = {\n",
    "    \"model\": \"jina-deepsearch-v1\",\n",
    "    \"messages\": [\n",
    "        {\n",
    "            \"role\": \"user\",\n",
    "            \"content\": \"Hi!\"\n",
    "        },\n",
    "        {\n",
    "            \"role\": \"assistant\",\n",
    "            \"content\": \"Hi, how can I help you?\"\n",
    "        },\n",
    "        {\n",
    "            \"role\": \"user\",\n",
    "            \"content\": \"What legal precedents exist for copyright infringement cases involving AI-generated content?\"\n",
    "        }\n",
    "    ],\n",
    "    \"stream\": False,\n",
    "    \"reasoning_effort\": \"medium\",\n",
    "    \"max_attempts\": 1,\n",
    "    \"no_direct_answer\": False\n",
    "}\n",
    "\n",
    "response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, json=data)\n",
    "print(response.text)\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 110,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "The legal landscape surrounding AI-generated content, while still in its formative stages, is being actively shaped by key legal principles and emerging case law concerning copyright infringement. While definitive legal precedents remain scarce due to the technology's novelty, ongoing litigation and evolving legal opinions provide critical guidance.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Core Legal Principles and Tests Under Judicial Scrutiny**\n",
      "\n",
      "*   **Substantial Similarity**: Courts are applying the well-established \"substantial similarity\" test to determine whether AI-generated outputs infringe upon existing copyrighted works. This analysis hinges on whether an AI-generated work is strikingly similar to a copyrighted work, such that an average person would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the original. The application of this test in the context of AI-generated content presents novel challenges. Traditional copyright law typically addresses direct copying or close paraphrasing. However, AI models learn patterns and styles, potentially generating outputs that evoke the overall \"feel\" of an original work without directly replicating it. Courts are therefore grappling with adapting the substantial similarity test to account for this more indirect form of appropriation. For example, in cases involving AI-generated art, the central question is whether the AI has merely learned the style of an artist or has created a derivative work that infringes on the copyright of specific artworks. Expert testimony explaining how AI models learn and generate content is becoming increasingly crucial in these cases to inform judicial determinations.\n",
      "\n",
      "*   **Fair Use Doctrine**The fair use doctrine is a central consideration in AI copyright litigation, particularly concerning the use of copyrighted material to train AI models. Courts consider the four statutory factors outlined in 17 U.S.C. § 107 (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The argument that training AI models constitutes fair use is frequently litigated. AI developers often argue that training is a transformative use because it employs copyrighted material to create something new—an AI model—rather than directly competing with the original work. Copyright holders, however, counter that the unauthorized use of their works for AI training deprives them of potential licensing revenue and undermines their control over their creative output. The Supreme Court's decision in*::Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith*, 598 U.S. 508 (2023) (concerning the fair use of a photograph of Prince), has significantly influenced this debate, emphasizing the importance of whether the secondary use is truly transformative and does not unduly harm the market for the original work.\n",
      "\n",
      "*   **Human Authorship Requirement**: Copyright law protects works of human creation. The U.S. Copyright Office has unequivocally stated that works created solely by AI are not copyrightable, as they lack the requisite human authorship. This principle raises complex questions about AI-assisted creation, where a human provides prompts or edits AI-generated outputs. Courts must assess the level of human input necessary for copyright protection. If an AI generates a work entirely autonomously, without significant human input, it is ineligible for copyright protection. [^1]However, if a human significantly modifies or arranges AI-generated elements, the human-authored aspects may be copyrightable. The Copyright Office's guidance on AI-generated content clarifies that copyright protection extends only to the human-authored aspects of a work, not the AI-generated elements themselves. This distinction is critical in determining the scope of copyright protection in AI-assisted creations.[^2]\n",
      "\n",
      "**Significant Cases and Ongoing Lawsuits**\n",
      "\n",
      "*   **Lawsuits Against AI Music Generators (e.g., Suno, Udio)**: Several major record labels have initiated legal action against AI music generation companies, such as Suno and Udio, alleging copyright infringement. The core argument is that these companies unlawfully used copyrighted music to train their AI models without obtaining the necessary permissions. Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that the AI-generated outputs closely resemble existing songs, thereby infringing on their copyrights. [^3]The defense in these cases often centers on the fair use doctrine, arguing that the AI's use of the music is transformative. A key legal question is whether the AI-generated music directly competes with the original songs and harms the market for those songs. The record labels assert that the AI-generated music serves as a substitute for licensed music, depriving them of substantial revenue.\n",
      "\n",
      "*   **Class Action Lawsuit Against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt**: A class-action lawsuit has been filed by artists against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, alleging copyright infringement related to the unauthorized use of their copyrighted images to train AI models. The artists claim that their works were used without their consent and that the AI-generated images directly compete with their original works. [^4]The defense maintains that training AI models constitutes fair use and that the AI-generated images are not substantially similar to the artists' original works. The plaintiffs argue that the AI models have learned and are replicating their unique styles, effectively creating derivative works without permission. This case is pivotal in testing the boundaries of fair use in the context of AI training data and determining the extent to which AI-generated outputs can infringe on an artist's distinctive style.\n",
      "\n",
      "*   ***The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft****:The New York Times* has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging that they unlawfully used millions of *NYT* articles to train their AI models without permission. *The Times* argues that this unauthorized use undermines its established business model and allows users to circumvent its paywall, thereby diminishing its subscription revenue. [^5]OpenAI and Microsoft are expected to assert a fair use defense, claiming that their AI models transform the articles into something new and different. The case also involves allegations of the removal of Copyright Management Information (CMI), with *The Times* contending that this was intentionally done to conceal the alleged copyright infringement. The legal arguments will likely focus on whether the AI models' use of the articles is indeed transformative and whether it demonstrably harms the market for *The NYT*'s copyrighted content.[^6]\n",
      "\n",
      "*   ***Getty Images v. Stability AI***: Getty Images has initiated legal proceedings against Stability AI in the UK, alleging that Stability AI illegally collected millions of Getty's copyrighted photographs to train its Stable Diffusion AI model. Getty argues that the AI-generated photographs bear its trademarks and can be traced back to their original sources, even including approximations of Getty's distinctive watermarks. [^7]Stability AI contends that it has not infringed any copyrights because it did not directly copy any specific works. The High Court has permitted Getty's claims to proceed to trial, indicating that there are substantial merits to the claims. This case underscores the critical issue of unauthorized use of copyrighted images for AI training and the potential for AI-generated outputs to infringe on established trademarks and watermarks.[^8]\n",
      "\n",
      "**Broader Implications for AI Development and Creative Industries**\n",
      "\n",
      "The legal precedents emerging from these landmark cases will have a profound impact on the future trajectory of both AI development and creative industries. If courts adopt a broad interpretation of fair use, allowing AI training on copyrighted material, it could significantly accelerate AI development by providing access to vast datasets. [^9]However, such an approach could also harm creative industries by diminishing incentives for creators to produce original works, as their content could be freely used for AI training without compensation. Conversely, if courts narrowly construe fair use, it could strengthen the rights of copyright holders but potentially stifle AI innovation by limiting access to essential training data. A balanced and nuanced approach is therefore essential to foster both AI innovation and creative expression. This balance may necessitate the development of comprehensive licensing frameworks that allow AI developers to use copyrighted material for training purposes in exchange for fair and equitable compensation to copyright holders. The ultimate outcomes of these pivotal cases will shape the legal landscape for AI-generated content and fundamentally influence the future of copyright law in the digital age.[^10]\n",
      "\n",
      "| Aspect | United States | United Kingdom |\n",
      "| --- | --- | --- |\n",
      "| Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works | Not copyrightable if solely generated by AI; requires human authorship. | Potentially copyrightable under Section 9(3) of the CDPA, even without significant human input. |\n",
      "| Fair Use Doctrine | Frequently invoked in cases involving AI training data; transformative use is a key consideration. | Relevance is similar to the US, but the interpretation of Section 9(3) provides a distinct framework. |\n",
      "| Human Authorship | Critical for copyright protection; courts focus on the extent of human involvement. | May not be as critical due to Section 9(3); the person making necessary arrangements can be considered the author. |\n",
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "The legal battles surrounding AI-generated content are not merely academic exercises; they are high-stakes contests that will determine the balance of power between technology companies and creative artists. The outcomes will dictate the future of digital content creation, the economic viability of creative professions, and the pace of technological innovation. The courts, in their wisdom (or lack thereof), will set the rules of engagement for this new era, and their decisions will reverberate across industries for decades to come.\n",
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "[^1]: In the UK in Getty Images v Stability AI Stability AI is the target of a lawsuit by Getty Images before the High Court Getty claims that millions of its copyrighted photos were illegally collected by Stability AI to train its Stable Diffusion AI model Getty makes the case that Stable Diffusion s outputs do more than just copy Getty s artwork they bear its trademarks as well According to Getty the AI generated photos can be traced to their original sources [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^2]: Stability AI maintains that it has not infringed any copyrights as it did not directly copy any specific works The High Court has allowed Getty s claims to proceed to trial after dismissing Stability AI s request for summary judgment which means the claims will proceed to be heard at trial The court noted that there are substantial merits to the claims This is particularly true regarding the location of the training activities It is also important to determine whether they occurred in the UK [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^3]: These lawsuits accuse Suno and Udio of infringing on copyrights by using AI to replicate music from various artists without authorization [Legal Storm Ahead: Major Labels Sue AI Music Generators](https://thebeckagefirm.com/legal-storm-ahead-major-labels-sue-ai-music-generators)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^4]: Filed in 2023 in the Southern District of New York the news company filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for using its articles unlawfully to train AI models It contends that this use violates its copyright and undermines its business model by allowing bypass of paywall According to the lawsuit the Times earnings and journalistic integrity are seriously threatened by OpenAI s capacity to produce outputs that closely resemble or imitate its material [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^5]: The outcomes of these cases will significantly shape the future of copyright law concerning artificial intelligence They will establish new norms and expectations for both content creators and AI developers As courts navigate these complex issues new legislation could emerge This legislation may balance innovation with intellectual property rights Such changes would foster an environment where technological advancement does not come at the expense of creators rights [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^6]: In another case a group of artists brought a class action lawsuit against Stability AI Midjourney and DeviantArt for copyright infringement [Who Really Owns AI Art? What Businesses Need To Know - Forbes](https://forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/04/16/who-really-owns-ai-art-what-businesses-need-to-know-about-generative-ai-and-intellectual-ownership)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^7]: Here too the defense taken is that of the fair use doctrine Another pertinent issue that arose was the removal of the Copyright Management Information CMI that encompasses the copyright notice title and other identifying information terms and conditions of use and identifying numbers or symbols referring to the CMI The Times claimed that the removal of CMI was done intentionally to hide the copyright infringement To prove fair use defense OpenAI recently sought to compel the production of 1 the Times s use of nonparties generative artificial intelligence Gen AI [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^8]: However i n these cases copyright will only protect the human authored aspects of the work which are independent of and do not affect the copyright status of the AI generated material itself [Copyright Ownership of Generative AI Outputs Varies Around the](https://cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-01-29-copyright-ownership-of-generative-ai-outputs-varies-around-the-world)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^9]: The legal landscape is poised for transformation as these cases unfold This could lead to more stringent regulations around data usage in AI training It might also lead to clearer definitions of fair use that reflect the unique challenges posed by emerging technologies [Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v OpenAI](https://techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai)\n",
      "\n",
      "[^10]: It also states that if a human simply types in a prompt and a machine generates complex written visual or musical works in response the traditional elements of authorship have been executed by AI a non human Therefore it is not protected by copyright [AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law: What We Know - Built In](https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright)\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "print(response.json()['choices'][0]['message']['content'])"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "import requests\n",
    "import json\n",
    "\n",
    "url = 'https://deepsearch.jina.ai/v1/chat/completions'\n",
    "headers = {\n",
    "    'Content-Type': 'application/json'\n",
    "}\n",
    "data = {\n",
    "    \"model\": \"jina-deepsearch-v1\",\n",
    "    \"messages\": [\n",
    "        {\n",
    "            \"role\": \"user\",\n",
    "            \"content\": \"Hi!\"\n",
    "        },\n",
    "        {\n",
    "            \"role\": \"assistant\",\n",
    "            \"content\": \"Hi, how can I help you?\"\n",
    "        },\n",
    "        {\n",
    "            \"role\": \"user\",\n",
    "            \"content\": \"What legal arguments have been most successful in challenging the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate provision in higher courts?\"\n",
    "        }\n",
    "    ],\n",
    "    \"stream\": False,\n",
    "    \"reasoning_effort\": \"medium\",\n",
    "    \"max_attempts\": 1,\n",
    "    \"no_direct_answer\": False\n",
    "}\n",
    "\n",
    "response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, json=data)\n",
    "print(response.text)\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "markdown",
   "metadata": {},
   "source": [
    "# LANGGRAPH"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 39,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "Requirement already satisfied: langchain>=0.1.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.3.12)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langchain-google-genai>=0.0.5 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 2)) (2.1.4)\n",
      "Collecting google-generativeai>=0.3.0 (from -r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.5-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langchain-community>=0.0.16 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 4)) (0.3.12)\n",
      "Collecting faiss-cpu>=1.7.4 (from -r requirement.txt (line 5))\n",
      "  Downloading faiss_cpu-1.11.0-cp312-cp312-manylinux_2_28_x86_64.whl.metadata (4.8 kB)\n",
      "Collecting pypdf>=3.17.0 (from -r requirement.txt (line 6))\n",
      "  Downloading pypdf-5.4.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (7.3 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: sentence-transformers>=2.5.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 7)) (3.3.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pydantic>=2.5.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 8)) (2.10.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: requests>=2.31.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 9)) (2.32.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: huggingface-hub>=0.20.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from -r requirement.txt (line 10)) (0.27.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: PyYAML>=5.3 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (6.0.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: SQLAlchemy<3,>=1.4 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (2.0.36)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (3.11.10)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langchain-core<0.4.0,>=0.3.25 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.3.58)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langchain-text-splitters<0.4.0,>=0.3.3 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.3.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.2.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: numpy<3,>=1.26.2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (2.2.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: tenacity!=8.4.0,<10,>=8.1.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (8.5.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: filetype<2.0.0,>=1.2.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-google-genai>=0.0.5->-r requirement.txt (line 2)) (1.2.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: google-ai-generativelanguage<0.7.0,>=0.6.18 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-google-genai>=0.0.5->-r requirement.txt (line 2)) (0.6.18)\n",
      "INFO: pip is looking at multiple versions of google-generativeai to determine which version is compatible with other requirements. This could take a while.\n",
      "Collecting google-generativeai>=0.3.0 (from -r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.4-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (4.2 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.3-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.2-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.1-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.7.2-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (4.0 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.7.1-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "INFO: pip is still looking at multiple versions of google-generativeai to determine which version is compatible with other requirements. This could take a while.\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.7.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.6.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.5.4-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.5.3-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.5.2-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "INFO: This is taking longer than usual. You might need to provide the dependency resolver with stricter constraints to reduce runtime. See https://pip.pypa.io/warnings/backtracking for guidance. If you want to abort this run, press Ctrl + C.\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.5.1-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.5.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.4.1-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (6.2 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.4.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (6.2 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.3.2-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (5.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.3.1-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (5.9 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading google_generativeai-0.3.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (5.8 kB)\n",
      "Collecting langchain-google-genai>=0.0.5 (from -r requirement.txt (line 2))\n",
      "  Using cached langchain_google_genai-2.1.4-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (5.2 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.1.3-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (4.7 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.1.2-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (4.7 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.1.1-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (4.7 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.1.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.6 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.0.11-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.6 kB)\n",
      "  Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.0.10-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (3.6 kB)\n",
      "Collecting google-ai-generativelanguage==0.6.15 (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading google_ai_generativelanguage-0.6.15-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (5.7 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: google-api-core in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (2.24.2)\n",
      "Collecting google-api-python-client (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading google_api_python_client-2.169.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (6.7 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: google-auth>=2.15.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (2.37.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: protobuf in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (5.29.4)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: tqdm in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (4.67.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: typing-extensions in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (4.12.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: proto-plus<2.0.0dev,>=1.22.3 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-ai-generativelanguage==0.6.15->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (1.26.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: dataclasses-json<0.7,>=0.5.7 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (0.6.7)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: httpx-sse<0.5.0,>=0.4.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (0.4.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pydantic-settings<3.0.0,>=2.4.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (2.7.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: packaging in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from faiss-cpu>=1.7.4->-r requirement.txt (line 5)) (24.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: transformers<5.0.0,>=4.41.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (4.47.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: torch>=1.11.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (2.5.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: scikit-learn in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (1.6.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: scipy in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (1.14.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: Pillow in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (10.4.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: annotated-types>=0.6.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from pydantic>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 8)) (0.7.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pydantic-core==2.27.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from pydantic>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 8)) (2.27.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: charset-normalizer<4,>=2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from requests>=2.31.0->-r requirement.txt (line 9)) (3.3.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: idna<4,>=2.5 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from requests>=2.31.0->-r requirement.txt (line 9)) (3.7)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: urllib3<3,>=1.21.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from requests>=2.31.0->-r requirement.txt (line 9)) (2.2.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: certifi>=2017.4.17 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from requests>=2.31.0->-r requirement.txt (line 9)) (2024.8.30)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: filelock in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from huggingface-hub>=0.20.0->-r requirement.txt (line 10)) (3.16.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: fsspec>=2023.5.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from huggingface-hub>=0.20.0->-r requirement.txt (line 10)) (2024.10.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: aiohappyeyeballs>=2.3.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (2.4.4)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: aiosignal>=1.1.2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.3.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: attrs>=17.3.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (24.3.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: frozenlist>=1.1.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.5.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: multidict<7.0,>=4.5 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (6.1.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: propcache>=0.2.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.2.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: yarl<2.0,>=1.17.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from aiohttp<4.0.0,>=3.8.3->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.18.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: marshmallow<4.0.0,>=3.18.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from dataclasses-json<0.7,>=0.5.7->langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (3.23.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: typing-inspect<1,>=0.4.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from dataclasses-json<0.7,>=0.5.7->langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (0.9.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: googleapis-common-protos<2.0.0,>=1.56.2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-api-core->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (1.66.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: cachetools<6.0,>=2.0.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-auth>=2.15.0->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (5.5.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pyasn1-modules>=0.2.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-auth>=2.15.0->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (0.4.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: rsa<5,>=3.1.4 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-auth>=2.15.0->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (4.9)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: jsonpatch<2.0,>=1.33 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langchain-core<0.4.0,>=0.3.25->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.33)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: httpx<1,>=0.23.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.28.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: orjson<4.0.0,>=3.9.14 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (3.10.12)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: requests-toolbelt<2.0.0,>=1.0.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.0.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: python-dotenv>=0.21.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from pydantic-settings<3.0.0,>=2.4.0->langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (1.1.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: greenlet!=0.4.17 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from SQLAlchemy<3,>=1.4->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (3.1.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: networkx in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (3.4.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: jinja2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (3.1.4)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cuda-nvrtc-cu12==12.4.127 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.4.127)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cuda-runtime-cu12==12.4.127 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.4.127)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cuda-cupti-cu12==12.4.127 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.4.127)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cudnn-cu12==9.1.0.70 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (9.1.0.70)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cublas-cu12==12.4.5.8 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.4.5.8)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cufft-cu12==11.2.1.3 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (11.2.1.3)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-curand-cu12==10.3.5.147 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (10.3.5.147)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cusolver-cu12==11.6.1.9 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (11.6.1.9)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-cusparse-cu12==12.3.1.170 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.3.1.170)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-nccl-cu12==2.21.5 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (2.21.5)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-nvtx-cu12==12.4.127 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.4.127)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: nvidia-nvjitlink-cu12==12.4.127 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (12.4.127)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: triton==3.1.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (3.1.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: setuptools in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (72.1.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: sympy==1.13.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (1.13.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: mpmath<1.4,>=1.1.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from sympy==1.13.1->torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (1.3.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: regex!=2019.12.17 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from transformers<5.0.0,>=4.41.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (2024.11.6)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: tokenizers<0.22,>=0.21 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from transformers<5.0.0,>=4.41.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (0.21.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: safetensors>=0.4.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from transformers<5.0.0,>=4.41.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (0.4.5)\n",
      "Collecting httplib2<1.0.0,>=0.19.0 (from google-api-python-client->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading httplib2-0.22.0-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (2.6 kB)\n",
      "Collecting google-auth-httplib2<1.0.0,>=0.2.0 (from google-api-python-client->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading google_auth_httplib2-0.2.0-py2.py3-none-any.whl.metadata (2.2 kB)\n",
      "Collecting uritemplate<5,>=3.0.1 (from google-api-python-client->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading uritemplate-4.1.1-py2.py3-none-any.whl.metadata (2.9 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: joblib>=1.2.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from scikit-learn->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (1.4.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: threadpoolctl>=3.1.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from scikit-learn->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (3.5.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: grpcio<2.0dev,>=1.33.2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-api-core[grpc]!=2.0.*,!=2.1.*,!=2.10.*,!=2.2.*,!=2.3.*,!=2.4.*,!=2.5.*,!=2.6.*,!=2.7.*,!=2.8.*,!=2.9.*,<3.0.0dev,>=1.34.1->google-ai-generativelanguage==0.6.15->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (1.72.0rc1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: grpcio-status<2.0.dev0,>=1.33.2 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from google-api-core[grpc]!=2.0.*,!=2.1.*,!=2.10.*,!=2.2.*,!=2.3.*,!=2.4.*,!=2.5.*,!=2.6.*,!=2.7.*,!=2.8.*,!=2.9.*,<3.0.0dev,>=1.34.1->google-ai-generativelanguage==0.6.15->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (1.71.0)\n",
      "Collecting pyparsing!=3.0.0,!=3.0.1,!=3.0.2,!=3.0.3,<4,>=2.4.2 (from httplib2<1.0.0,>=0.19.0->google-api-python-client->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3))\n",
      "  Downloading pyparsing-3.2.3-py3-none-any.whl.metadata (5.0 kB)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: anyio in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from httpx<1,>=0.23.0->langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (4.7.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: httpcore==1.* in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from httpx<1,>=0.23.0->langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.0.7)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: h11<0.15,>=0.13 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from httpcore==1.*->httpx<1,>=0.23.0->langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (0.14.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: jsonpointer>=1.9 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from jsonpatch<2.0,>=1.33->langchain-core<0.4.0,>=0.3.25->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (2.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: pyasn1<0.7.0,>=0.4.6 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from pyasn1-modules>=0.2.1->google-auth>=2.15.0->google-generativeai>=0.3.0->-r requirement.txt (line 3)) (0.6.1)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: mypy-extensions>=0.3.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from typing-inspect<1,>=0.4.0->dataclasses-json<0.7,>=0.5.7->langchain-community>=0.0.16->-r requirement.txt (line 4)) (1.0.0)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: MarkupSafe>=2.0 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from jinja2->torch>=1.11.0->sentence-transformers>=2.5.0->-r requirement.txt (line 7)) (3.0.2)\n",
      "Requirement already satisfied: sniffio>=1.1 in /home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages (from anyio->httpx<1,>=0.23.0->langsmith<0.3,>=0.1.17->langchain>=0.1.0->-r requirement.txt (line 1)) (1.3.1)\n",
      "Downloading langchain_google_genai-2.0.10-py3-none-any.whl (41 kB)\n",
      "Downloading google_generativeai-0.8.5-py3-none-any.whl (155 kB)\n",
      "Downloading google_ai_generativelanguage-0.6.15-py3-none-any.whl (1.3 MB)\n",
      "\u001b[2K   \u001b[90m━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\u001b[0m \u001b[32m1.3/1.3 MB\u001b[0m \u001b[31m3.0 MB/s\u001b[0m eta \u001b[36m0:00:00\u001b[0ma \u001b[36m0:00:01\u001b[0m\n",
      "\u001b[?25hDownloading faiss_cpu-1.11.0-cp312-cp312-manylinux_2_28_x86_64.whl (31.3 MB)\n",
      "\u001b[2K   \u001b[90m━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\u001b[0m \u001b[32m31.3/31.3 MB\u001b[0m \u001b[31m5.1 MB/s\u001b[0m eta \u001b[36m0:00:00\u001b[0m00:01\u001b[0m00:01\u001b[0m\n",
      "\u001b[?25hDownloading pypdf-5.4.0-py3-none-any.whl (302 kB)\n",
      "Downloading google_api_python_client-2.169.0-py3-none-any.whl (13.3 MB)\n",
      "\u001b[2K   \u001b[90m━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\u001b[0m \u001b[32m13.3/13.3 MB\u001b[0m \u001b[31m5.6 MB/s\u001b[0m eta \u001b[36m0:00:00\u001b[0ma \u001b[36m0:00:01\u001b[0m\n",
      "\u001b[?25hDownloading google_auth_httplib2-0.2.0-py2.py3-none-any.whl (9.3 kB)\n",
      "Downloading httplib2-0.22.0-py3-none-any.whl (96 kB)\n",
      "Downloading uritemplate-4.1.1-py2.py3-none-any.whl (10 kB)\n",
      "Downloading pyparsing-3.2.3-py3-none-any.whl (111 kB)\n",
      "Installing collected packages: uritemplate, pypdf, pyparsing, faiss-cpu, httplib2, google-auth-httplib2, google-api-python-client, google-ai-generativelanguage, google-generativeai, langchain-google-genai\n",
      "  Attempting uninstall: google-ai-generativelanguage\n",
      "    Found existing installation: google-ai-generativelanguage 0.6.18\n",
      "    Uninstalling google-ai-generativelanguage-0.6.18:\n",
      "      Successfully uninstalled google-ai-generativelanguage-0.6.18\n",
      "  Attempting uninstall: langchain-google-genai\n",
      "    Found existing installation: langchain-google-genai 2.1.4\n",
      "    Uninstalling langchain-google-genai-2.1.4:\n",
      "      Successfully uninstalled langchain-google-genai-2.1.4\n",
      "Successfully installed faiss-cpu-1.11.0 google-ai-generativelanguage-0.6.15 google-api-python-client-2.169.0 google-auth-httplib2-0.2.0 google-generativeai-0.8.5 httplib2-0.22.0 langchain-google-genai-2.0.10 pyparsing-3.2.3 pypdf-5.4.0 uritemplate-4.1.1\n",
      "Note: you may need to restart the kernel to use updated packages.\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "pip install -r requirement.txt"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 32,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "from langchain.agents import AgentExecutor, create_structured_chat_agent, create_tool_calling_agent\n",
    "from langchain.chains import LLMChain, SequentialChain, MapReduceDocumentsChain, ConversationalRetrievalChain\n",
    "from langchain.tools import Tool, BaseTool\n",
    "from langchain.prompts import PromptTemplate, ChatPromptTemplate, HumanMessagePromptTemplate\n",
    "from langchain.schema import HumanMessage, SystemMessage\n",
    "from langchain import hub\n",
    "from langchain.memory import ConversationBufferMemory\n",
    "from langchain_google_genai import ChatGoogleGenerativeAI\n",
    "from langchain.schema.output_parser import StrOutputParser\n",
    "# from langchain.graph_transformers import GraphTransformer\n",
    "from langchain.document_loaders import PyPDFLoader\n",
    "from langchain.text_splitter import RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter\n",
    "from langchain.vectorstores import FAISS\n",
    "from langchain.embeddings import HuggingFaceEmbeddings\n",
    "from typing import Dict, List, Any, Optional, Type, Union\n",
    "import requests\n",
    "import json\n",
    "import os\n",
    "from pydantic import BaseModel, Field"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 140,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "from langchain.agents import AgentExecutor, create_structured_chat_agent, create_tool_calling_agent\n",
    "from langchain.chains import LLMChain, SequentialChain, MapReduceDocumentsChain, ConversationalRetrievalChain\n",
    "from langchain.tools import Tool, BaseTool\n",
    "from langchain.prompts import PromptTemplate, ChatPromptTemplate, HumanMessagePromptTemplate\n",
    "from langchain.schema import HumanMessage, SystemMessage\n",
    "from langchain import hub\n",
    "from langchain.memory import ConversationBufferMemory\n",
    "from langchain_google_genai import ChatGoogleGenerativeAI\n",
    "from langchain.schema.output_parser import StrOutputParser\n",
    "# from langchain.graph_transformers import GraphTransformer\n",
    "from langchain.document_loaders import PyPDFLoader\n",
    "from langchain.text_splitter import RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter\n",
    "from langchain.vectorstores import FAISS\n",
    "from langchain.embeddings import HuggingFaceEmbeddings\n",
    "from typing import Dict, List, Any, Optional, Type, Union\n",
    "import requests\n",
    "import json\n",
    "import os\n",
    "from pydantic import BaseModel, Field\n",
    "\n",
    "\n",
    "# Initialize the LLM\n",
    "llm = ChatGroq(temperature=0, model_name=\"compound-beta\")\n",
    "\n",
    "# Setup embeddings for document retrieval\n",
    "embeddings = HuggingFaceEmbeddings(model_name=\"sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2\")\n",
    "\n",
    "# Text splitter for document processing\n",
    "text_splitter = RecursiveCharacterTextSplitter(\n",
    "    chunk_size=1500,\n",
    "    chunk_overlap=150,\n",
    ")\n",
    "\n",
    "# 1. SummarizationTool\n",
    "class SummarizationTool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name: str = \"document_summarization_tool\"\n",
    "    description: str = \"Summarizes legal documents. Input should be a file path to a PDF or text document.\"\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, file_path: str) -> str:\n",
    "        # Load document\n",
    "        if file_path.endswith('.pdf'):\n",
    "            loader = PyPDFLoader(file_path)\n",
    "            documents = loader.load()\n",
    "        else:\n",
    "            with open(file_path, 'r') as f:\n",
    "                text = f.read()\n",
    "            documents = [text]\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Split documents\n",
    "        docs = text_splitter.split_documents(documents)\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Map step - summarize each chunk\n",
    "        map_template = \"\"\"\n",
    "        You are a legal expert summarizing complex legal documents.\n",
    "        Summarize the following text in a concise and accurate manner, preserving key legal points:\n",
    "        \n",
    "        {text}\n",
    "        \"\"\"\n",
    "        map_prompt = PromptTemplate(template=map_template, input_variables=[\"text\"])\n",
    "        map_chain = LLMChain(llm=llm, prompt=map_prompt, output_key=\"summary\")\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Reduce step - combine summaries\n",
    "        reduce_template = \"\"\"\n",
    "        You are a legal expert creating a comprehensive summary from multiple text segments.\n",
    "        Combine these summaries into a cohesive overview of the entire document, organized by key legal themes and points:\n",
    "        \n",
    "        {summaries}\n",
    "        \"\"\"\n",
    "        reduce_prompt = PromptTemplate(template=reduce_template, input_variables=[\"summaries\"])\n",
    "        reduce_chain = LLMChain(llm=llm, prompt=reduce_prompt)\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Create MapReduce chain\n",
    "        map_reduce_chain = MapReduceDocumentsChain(\n",
    "            llm_chain=map_chain,\n",
    "            reduce_documents_chain=reduce_chain,\n",
    "            document_variable_name=\"text\",\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        \n",
    "        return map_reduce_chain.run(docs)\n",
    "\n",
    "# 2. ReportGenerationTool\n",
    "class ReportGenerationInput(BaseModel):\n",
    "    case_name: str = Field(description=\"Name of the legal case\")\n",
    "    case_facts: str = Field(description=\"Key facts of the case\")\n",
    "    legal_issues: str = Field(description=\"Legal issues identified in the case\")\n",
    "    applicable_laws: str = Field(description=\"Laws and regulations applicable to this case\")\n",
    "\n",
    "class ReportGenerationTool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name :str = \"case_report_generation_tool\"\n",
    "    description :str = \"Generates comprehensive legal case reports based on provided case information, input to this tool must be a SINGLE JSON STRING\"\n",
    "    args_schema: Type[BaseModel] = ReportGenerationInput\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, case_name: str, case_facts: str, legal_issues: str, applicable_laws: str) -> str:\n",
    "        report_template = \"\"\"\n",
    "        You are a legal professional drafting a formal case report.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        Create a comprehensive legal case report with the following structure:\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # CASE REPORT: {case_name}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n",
    "        Provide a brief overview of the case, its significance, and the outcome (if known).\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## CASE FACTS\n",
    "        {case_facts}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## LEGAL ISSUES\n",
    "        {legal_issues}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\n",
    "        {applicable_laws}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## LEGAL ANALYSIS\n",
    "        Analyze how the applicable laws relate to the facts and issues of this case. Include relevant legal precedents if appropriate.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\n",
    "        Outline possible arguments for both sides of the case.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## CONCLUSION\n",
    "        Provide a concluding assessment of the case's legal position, potential outcomes, and recommendations.\n",
    "        \"\"\"\n",
    "        \n",
    "        report_prompt = PromptTemplate(\n",
    "            template=report_template,\n",
    "            input_variables=[\"case_name\", \"case_facts\", \"legal_issues\", \"applicable_laws\"]\n",
    "        )\n",
    "\n",
    "        report_chain = report_prompt | llm \n",
    "        \n",
    "        output = report_chain.invoke(\n",
    "            {\n",
    "                \"case_name\": case_name,\n",
    "                \"case_facts\": case_facts,\n",
    "                \"legal_issues\": legal_issues,\n",
    "                \"applicable_laws\": applicable_laws\n",
    "            }\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        return output.content\n",
    "    \n",
    "# 3. EvidenceAnalysisTool using DEEPresearch\n",
    "class EvidenceAnalysisTool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name : str = \"evidence_analysis_tool\"\n",
    "    description : str = \"Analyzes legal evidence using DEEPresearch and builds relationships between entities. Input should be a legal query about evidence or case analysis.\"\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, query: str) -> str:\n",
    "        url = 'https://deepsearch.jina.ai/v1/chat/completions'\n",
    "        headers = {\n",
    "            'Content-Type': 'application/json'\n",
    "        }\n",
    "        \n",
    "        data = {\n",
    "            \"model\": \"jina-deepsearch-v1\",\n",
    "            \"messages\": [\n",
    "                {\n",
    "                    \"role\": \"system\",\n",
    "                    \"content\": \"You are a legal evidence analyst. Your task is to analyze legal evidence, extract key entities, and establish relationships between them.\"\n",
    "                },\n",
    "                {\n",
    "                    \"role\": \"user\",\n",
    "                    \"content\": query\n",
    "                }\n",
    "            ],\n",
    "            \"stream\": False,\n",
    "            \"reasoning_effort\": \"medium\",\n",
    "            \"max_attempts\": 2,\n",
    "            \"no_direct_answer\": False\n",
    "        }\n",
    "\n",
    "        try:\n",
    "            # In production, use actual API call\n",
    "            response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, json=data)\n",
    "            result = response.json()['choices'][0]['message']['content']\n",
    "            # result = \"OK\"\n",
    "            return result\n",
    "        except Exception as e:\n",
    "            return f\"Error analyzing evidence with DEEPresearch: {str(e)}\"\n",
    "\n",
    "# 4. LegalQATool\n",
    "class LegalQATool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name : str = \"legal_qa_tool\"\n",
    "    description :str= \"Answers legal questions using a knowledge base of laws and regulations.\"\n",
    "    memory: ConversationBufferMemory = None\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def __init__(self):\n",
    "        super().__init__()\n",
    "        # Initialize memory in the constructor\n",
    "        self.memory = ConversationBufferMemory(\n",
    "            memory_key=\"chat_history\",\n",
    "            return_messages=True\n",
    "        )\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, query: str) -> str:\n",
    "        # In production environment:\n",
    "        # 1. Load vector store with legal documents\n",
    "        # 2. Create retriever from vector store\n",
    "        # 3. Create ConversationalRetrievalChain\n",
    "        \n",
    "        template = \"\"\"\n",
    "        You are a legal assistant specializing in answering legal questions.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        Use your knowledge of laws and regulations to provide an accurate and helpful answer to the question.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        Question: {question}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        Provide a clear, concise answer citing relevant laws or precedents when appropriate.\n",
    "        Include a disclaimer that your answer is not legal advice.\n",
    "        \"\"\"\n",
    "        \n",
    "        prompt = PromptTemplate(\n",
    "            template=template,\n",
    "            input_variables=[\"question\"]\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        \n",
    "        qa_chain = LLMChain(\n",
    "            llm=llm,\n",
    "            prompt=prompt\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        \n",
    "        response = qa_chain.run(question=query)\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Update conversation memory\n",
    "        self.memory.chat_memory.add_user_message(query)\n",
    "        self.memory.chat_memory.add_ai_message(response)\n",
    "        \n",
    "        return response\n",
    "\n",
    "# 5. ElementExtractionTool\n",
    "class ElementExtractionTool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name :str= \"legal_element_extraction_tool\"\n",
    "    description :str= \"Extracts specific legal elements from legal texts such as contracts, judgments, or legal briefs.\"\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, query: str) -> str:\n",
    "        # Define extraction schema\n",
    "        schema = {\n",
    "            \"title\": \"Extractor\",\n",
    "            \"description\": \"Extract relevant legal elements.\",\n",
    "            \"type\": \"object\",            \n",
    "            \"properties\": {\n",
    "                \"parties\": {\"type\": \"array\", \"items\": {\"type\": \"string\"}, \"description\": \"The parties involved in the legal document\"},\n",
    "                \"dates\": {\"type\": \"array\", \"items\": {\"type\": \"string\"}, \"description\": \"Important dates mentioned in the document\"},\n",
    "                \"obligations\": {\"type\": \"array\", \"items\": {\"type\": \"string\"}, \"description\": \"Legal obligations specified in the document\"},\n",
    "                \"jurisdiction\": {\"type\": \"string\", \"description\": \"The legal jurisdiction that applies\"},\n",
    "                \"legal_citations\": {\"type\": \"array\", \"items\": {\"type\": \"string\"}, \"description\": \"Citations of laws, regulations, or precedents\"},\n",
    "                \"monetary_values\": {\"type\": \"array\", \"items\": {\"type\": \"string\"}, \"description\": \"Monetary amounts mentioned in the document\"}\n",
    "            },\n",
    "            \"required\": [\"parties\"]\n",
    "        }\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Create extraction chain\n",
    "        extraction_prompt = ChatPromptTemplate.from_messages([\n",
    "            SystemMessage(content=\"You are a legal element extraction expert. Extract the requested information from the provided legal text.\"),\n",
    "            HumanMessage(content=\"Extract the following information from this legal text: {query}\")\n",
    "        ])\n",
    "        extraction_chain = extraction_prompt | agent_llm.with_structured_output(schema=schema)\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # Run extraction\n",
    "        try:\n",
    "            result = extraction_chain.invoke({\"query\":query})\n",
    "            # Format result for better readability\n",
    "            formatted_result = \"Extracted Legal Elements:\\n\\n\"\n",
    "            for key, value in result.items():\n",
    "                if isinstance(value, list):\n",
    "                    formatted_result += f\"{key.capitalize()}:\\n\"\n",
    "                    for item in value:\n",
    "                        formatted_result += f\"- {item}\\n\"\n",
    "                else:\n",
    "                    formatted_result += f\"{key.capitalize()}: {value}\\n\"\n",
    "            return formatted_result\n",
    "        except Exception as e:\n",
    "            return f\"Error extracting elements: {str(e)}\"\n",
    "\n",
    "# Create tools\n",
    "summarization_tool = Tool.from_function(\n",
    "    func=SummarizationTool()._run,\n",
    "    name=\"document_summarization_tool\",\n",
    "    description=\"Summarizes legal documents. Input should be a file path to a PDF or text document.\"\n",
    ")\n",
    "\n",
    "report_generation_tool = ReportGenerationTool()\n",
    "\n",
    "evidence_analysis_tool = EvidenceAnalysisTool()\n",
    "\n",
    "legal_qa_tool = Tool.from_function(\n",
    "    func=LegalQATool()._run,\n",
    "    name=\"legal_qa_tool\",\n",
    "    description=\"Answers legal questions. Input should be a clear legal question.\"\n",
    ")\n",
    "\n",
    "element_extraction_tool = ElementExtractionTool()\n",
    "\n",
    "# Combine all tools\n",
    "tools = [\n",
    "    summarization_tool,\n",
    "    report_generation_tool,\n",
    "    evidence_analysis_tool,\n",
    "    legal_qa_tool,\n",
    "    element_extraction_tool\n",
    "]\n",
    "\n",
    "# Create the main legal assistant agent\n",
    "agent_llm = ChatGroq(temperature=0, model_name=\"deepseek-r1-distill-llama-70b\")\n",
    "agent_prompt = ChatPromptTemplate.from_messages(\n",
    "    [\n",
    "        (\"system\", \"You are a helpful assistant that can use multiple tools to answer questions. You have access to multiple specialized tools: 1. Document Summarization - For summarizing legal documents 2. Case Report Generation - For creating comprehensive legal case reports 3. Evidence Analysis - For analyzing legal evidence using advanced research capabilities (Use this tool when you need updated information regarding laws and public information) 4. Legal Q&A - For answering legal questions using a knowledge base 5. Legal Element Extraction - For extracting specific elements from legal texts \"),\n",
    "        (\"human\", \"{input}\"),\n",
    "        (\"placeholder\", \"{agent_scratchpad}\"),\n",
    "    ]\n",
    ")\n",
    "agent = create_tool_calling_agent(agent_llm, tools, agent_prompt)\n",
    "\n",
    "# Create agent executor\n",
    "agent_executor = AgentExecutor(\n",
    "    agent=agent,\n",
    "    tools=tools,\n",
    "    verbose=True,\n",
    "    handle_parsing_errors=True,\n",
    "    max_iterations=5\n",
    ")\n",
    "\n",
    "# Example usage\n",
    "async def process_legal_request(user_query):\n",
    "    \"\"\"\n",
    "    Process a user's legal request using the multiagent system.\n",
    "    \n",
    "    Args:\n",
    "        user_query (str): The user's legal question or request\n",
    "        \n",
    "    Returns:\n",
    "        str: The response from the legal assistant\n",
    "    \"\"\"\n",
    "    try:\n",
    "        input = {\"input\": user_query}\n",
    "        response = await agent_executor.ainvoke(input)\n",
    "        return response[\"output\"]\n",
    "    except Exception as e:\n",
    "        return f\"Error processing your request: {str(e)}\"\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 4,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "Query: Generate a case report for Smith v. Jones with the following facts: Plaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods. Legal issues include: contract validity, force majeure clauses. Applicable laws: UCC Article 2, State contract law.\n",
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "\u001b[1m> Entering new AgentExecutor chain...\u001b[0m\n",
      "\u001b[32;1m\u001b[1;3m\n",
      "Invoking: `case_report_generation_tool` with `{'case_name': 'Smith v. Jones', 'case_facts': 'Plaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods.', 'legal_issues': 'contract validity, force majeure clauses', 'applicable_laws': 'UCC Article 2, State contract law'}`\n",
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "\u001b[0m\u001b[33;1m\u001b[1;3m# CASE REPORT: Smith v. Jones\n",
      "\n",
      "## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n",
      "This case involves a dispute between Smith, the plaintiff, and Jones, the defendant, regarding a breach of contract for the failure to deliver goods. The plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract, while the defendant argues that unforeseen circumstances, beyond their control, prevented them from doing so. This report provides an overview of the case facts, legal issues, applicable laws, and a detailed legal analysis. The outcome of the case depends on the court's interpretation of contract validity, the applicability of force majeure clauses, and the parties' obligations under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2 and state contract law.\n",
      "\n",
      "## CASE FACTS\n",
      "Smith, a buyer, entered into a contract with Jones, a seller, on January 10, 2023, for the purchase of 1000 units of a specific product. The contract specified that the goods were to be delivered by February 28, 2023. The purchase price was $50,000, with a payment term of 30 days upon receipt of the goods. Smith made the payment in full on January 15, 2023. However, Jones failed to deliver the goods by the agreed-upon date. When Smith requested delivery several times, Jones cited unforeseen manufacturing delays and supply chain disruptions due to extreme weather conditions as reasons for the delay. Eventually, Jones offered to deliver a partial shipment but not the full quantity. Smith rejected the partial delivery and demanded full delivery or a refund.\n",
      "\n",
      "## LEGAL ISSUES\n",
      "The primary legal issues in this case are:\n",
      "1. The validity of the contract and whether it was properly executed.\n",
      "2. The applicability and interpretation of force majeure clauses in the contract.\n",
      "3. Whether Jones' failure to deliver the goods constitutes a breach of contract.\n",
      "4. The rights and remedies available to Smith under the contract and applicable laws.\n",
      "\n",
      "## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\n",
      "The case is governed by:\n",
      "- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2, which deals with sales of goods.\n",
      "- State contract law, which provides general principles for contract formation, performance, and breach.\n",
      "\n",
      "## LEGAL ANALYSIS\n",
      "Under UCC Article 2, a contract for the sale of goods requires that the goods be delivered within the time specified or, if no time is specified, within a reasonable time. The contract between Smith and Jones specified a delivery date, which was not met. The defendant's claim of unforeseen manufacturing delays and supply chain disruptions could potentially be covered under a force majeure clause if such a clause exists in the contract. A force majeure clause excuses a party from performing their contractual obligations when certain events beyond their control occur.\n",
      "\n",
      "The existence and applicability of a force majeure clause in this contract will be crucial. If the clause is deemed applicable, it may excuse Jones' non-performance. However, if the clause does not apply or is not present, Jones' failure to deliver the goods could be considered a material breach of contract.\n",
      "\n",
      "Relevant legal precedents, such as those found in UCC Article 2, Sections 2-615 (Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions) and 2-616 (Procedure on Notice Claiming Excuse), may be applicable. These sections provide guidance on when a party may be excused from performing their contractual obligations due to unforeseen circumstances.\n",
      "\n",
      "## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\n",
      "### For Smith (Plaintiff):\n",
      "- The contract was valid and enforceable, and Jones' failure to deliver the goods by the specified date constitutes a breach.\n",
      "- The force majeure clause, if applicable, does not excuse Jones' performance since the events cited could have been mitigated with reasonable diligence.\n",
      "- Smith is entitled to remedies under UCC Article 2, including damages for non-delivery and possibly the right to cover (purchase goods from another seller).\n",
      "\n",
      "### For Jones (Defendant):\n",
      "- The contract was valid, but unforeseen circumstances (force majeure) prevented performance.\n",
      "- The events causing the delay were beyond their control and could not have been reasonably anticipated or mitigated.\n",
      "- They offered partial delivery, which demonstrates a good faith effort to perform under the contract.\n",
      "\n",
      "## CONCLUSION\n",
      "The outcome of Smith v. Jones hinges on the court's interpretation of the contract's force majeure clause, if present, and the application of UCC Article 2 and state contract law. The court's decision will likely turn on whether Jones' failure to deliver the goods was justified under the circumstances and whether Smith's demand for full delivery or a refund is supported by the contract and applicable laws.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Recommendations:**\n",
      "1. A thorough review of the contract to determine the existence and scope of any force majeure clause.\n",
      "2. Analysis of the reasonableness of Jones' actions in response to the unforeseen circumstances.\n",
      "3. Evaluation of Smith's efforts to mitigate damages.\n",
      "4. Consideration of settlement negotiations to avoid litigation costs.\n",
      "\n",
      "The case's legal position suggests that both parties have valid arguments. However, the final outcome depends on the court's interpretation of the facts in light of applicable laws and legal precedents.\u001b[0m\u001b[32;1m\u001b[1;3mThe case of Smith v. Jones revolves around a breach of contract dispute where Smith, the plaintiff, alleges that Jones, the defendant, failed to deliver goods as agreed. The contract specified delivery by February 28, 2023, for which Smith paid $50,000 upfront. Jones attributes the delay to unforeseen manufacturing and supply chain issues caused by extreme weather, invoking a potential force majeure clause.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Key Legal Issues:**\n",
      "1. **Contract Validity:** The enforceability of the contract and whether it was properly executed.\n",
      "2. **Force Majeure Clause:** Whether the clause applies and excuses Jones' non-performance due to extreme weather.\n",
      "3. **Breach of Contract:** Whether Jones' failure to deliver constitutes a material breach.\n",
      "4. **Remedies:** The rights available to Smith, such as damages or rescission.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Analysis:**\n",
      "- **Force Majeure Clause:** The applicability of this clause depends on its specific wording in the contract. If extreme weather is included and the events were beyond Jones' control, it might excuse their non-performance.\n",
      "- **UCC Article 2:** Under this code, timely delivery is crucial. Missing the specified date could constitute a breach unless excused by force majeure.\n",
      "- **Good Faith Effort:** Jones' offer of partial delivery may demonstrate an attempt to fulfill the contract, potentially mitigating liability.\n",
      "- **Reasonableness:** The court will assess whether the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances and whether Jones had contingency plans.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Conclusion:**\n",
      "The outcome hinges on the contract's terms, particularly the force majeure clause, and the court's interpretation of the events. Both parties have valid arguments, but the legal nuances will determine the final decision.\u001b[0m\n",
      "\n",
      "\u001b[1m> Finished chain.\u001b[0m\n",
      "Response: The case of Smith v. Jones revolves around a breach of contract dispute where Smith, the plaintiff, alleges that Jones, the defendant, failed to deliver goods as agreed. The contract specified delivery by February 28, 2023, for which Smith paid $50,000 upfront. Jones attributes the delay to unforeseen manufacturing and supply chain issues caused by extreme weather, invoking a potential force majeure clause.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Key Legal Issues:**\n",
      "1. **Contract Validity:** The enforceability of the contract and whether it was properly executed.\n",
      "2. **Force Majeure Clause:** Whether the clause applies and excuses Jones' non-performance due to extreme weather.\n",
      "3. **Breach of Contract:** Whether Jones' failure to deliver constitutes a material breach.\n",
      "4. **Remedies:** The rights available to Smith, such as damages or rescission.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Analysis:**\n",
      "- **Force Majeure Clause:** The applicability of this clause depends on its specific wording in the contract. If extreme weather is included and the events were beyond Jones' control, it might excuse their non-performance.\n",
      "- **UCC Article 2:** Under this code, timely delivery is crucial. Missing the specified date could constitute a breach unless excused by force majeure.\n",
      "- **Good Faith Effort:** Jones' offer of partial delivery may demonstrate an attempt to fulfill the contract, potentially mitigating liability.\n",
      "- **Reasonableness:** The court will assess whether the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances and whether Jones had contingency plans.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Conclusion:**\n",
      "The outcome hinges on the contract's terms, particularly the force majeure clause, and the court's interpretation of the events. Both parties have valid arguments, but the legal nuances will determine the final decision.\n",
      "\n",
      "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n",
      "\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "from main import process_legal_request\n",
    "\n",
    "if __name__ == \"__main__\":\n",
    "    # Example queries\n",
    "    queries = [\n",
    "        # \"Summarize this legal contract at 'documents/contract.pdf'\",\n",
    "        \"Generate a case report for Smith v. Jones with the following facts: Plaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods. Legal issues include: contract validity, force majeure clauses. Applicable laws: UCC Article 2, State contract law.\",\n",
    "        # \"Analyze the evidence in the Johnson murder trial regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony\",\n",
    "        # \"What legal precedents exist for copyright infringement cases involving AI-generated content? Use DeepSearch\",\n",
    "        f\"Extract the key legal elements from this contract clause: \\n{doc}\"\n",
    "    ]\n",
    "    \n",
    "    for query in queries:\n",
    "        print(f\"Query: {query}\")\n",
    "        output = await process_legal_request(query)\n",
    "        print(f\"Response: {output}\")\n",
    "        print(\"\\n\" + \"-\"*80 + \"\\n\")"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 141,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "data": {
      "text/plain": [
       "'Extracted Legal Elements:\\n\\nDates:\\n- October 12, 2023\\nJurisdiction: State of California\\nLegal_citations:\\n- Cal. Civ. Code § 1542\\nMonetary_values:\\n- $250,000\\nObligations:\\n- Plaintiff shall pay the sum of $250,000 to Defendant within 30 days of this Agreement.\\n- Defendant shall release and discharge Plaintiff from all claims related to the matter.\\nParties:\\n- John Doe, Plaintiff\\n- Jane Smith, Defendant\\n'"
      ]
     },
     "execution_count": 141,
     "metadata": {},
     "output_type": "execute_result"
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "element_extraction_tool = ElementExtractionTool()\n",
    "element_extraction_tool.invoke({\"query\":\"Extract the key legal elements from this contract clause: 'The Party of the First Part shall indemnify and hold harmless the Party of the Second Part against any claims arising from the use of the Licensed Material in the Territory during the Term of this Agreement, which shall commence on January 1, 2025 and continue for a period of five (5) years.'\"})\n",
    "    "
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": []
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 86,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "# 2. ReportGenerationTool\n",
    "class ReportGenerationInput(BaseModel):\n",
    "    case_name: str = Field(description=\"Name of the legal case\")\n",
    "    case_facts: str = Field(description=\"Key facts of the case\")\n",
    "    legal_issues: str = Field(description=\"Legal issues identified in the case\")\n",
    "    applicable_laws: str = Field(description=\"Laws and regulations applicable to this case\")\n",
    "\n",
    "class ReportGenerationTool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name :str = \"case_report_generation_tool\"\n",
    "    description :str = \"Generates comprehensive legal case reports based on provided case information, input to this tool must be a SINGLE JSON STRING\"\n",
    "    args_schema: Type[BaseModel] = ReportGenerationInput\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, case_name: str, case_facts: str, legal_issues: str, applicable_laws: str) -> str:\n",
    "        report_template = \"\"\"\n",
    "        You are a legal professional drafting a formal case report.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        Create a comprehensive legal case report with the following structure:\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # CASE REPORT: {case_name}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n",
    "        Provide a brief overview of the case, its significance, and the outcome (if known).\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## CASE FACTS\n",
    "        {case_facts}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## LEGAL ISSUES\n",
    "        {legal_issues}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\n",
    "        {applicable_laws}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## LEGAL ANALYSIS\n",
    "        Analyze how the applicable laws relate to the facts and issues of this case. Include relevant legal precedents if appropriate.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\n",
    "        Outline possible arguments for both sides of the case.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## CONCLUSION\n",
    "        Provide a concluding assessment of the case's legal position, potential outcomes, and recommendations.\n",
    "        \"\"\"\n",
    "        \n",
    "        report_prompt = PromptTemplate(\n",
    "            template=report_template,\n",
    "            input_variables=[\"case_name\", \"case_facts\", \"legal_issues\", \"applicable_laws\"]\n",
    "        )\n",
    "\n",
    "        report_chain = report_prompt | llm \n",
    "        \n",
    "        output = report_chain.invoke(\n",
    "            {\n",
    "                \"case_name\": case_name,\n",
    "                \"case_facts\": case_facts,\n",
    "                \"legal_issues\": legal_issues,\n",
    "                \"applicable_laws\": applicable_laws\n",
    "            }\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        return output.content\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 107,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "evd = EvidenceAnalysisTool()\n",
    "int_res = await evd.arun({\n",
    "    \"query\": \"What legal precedents exist for copyright infringement cases involving AI-generated content?\"\n",
    "  })"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 108,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "Error analyzing evidence with DEEPresearch: 'choices'\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "print(int_res)"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 77,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": []
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 87,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "from langchain.agents import AgentExecutor, create_tool_calling_agent\n",
    "report_generation_tool = ReportGenerationTool()\n",
    "agent_prompt = ChatPromptTemplate.from_messages(\n",
    "    [\n",
    "        (\"system\", \"You are a helpful assistant that can use multiple tools to answer questions.\"),\n",
    "        (\"human\", \"{input}\"),\n",
    "        (\"placeholder\", \"{agent_scratchpad}\"),\n",
    "    ]\n",
    ")\n",
    "agent = create_tool_calling_agent(agent_llm, [report_generation_tool], agent_prompt)\n",
    "\n",
    "# Create agent executor\n",
    "agent_executor = AgentExecutor(\n",
    "    agent=agent,\n",
    "    tools=[report_generation_tool],\n",
    "    verbose=True,\n",
    "    handle_parsing_errors=True,\n",
    "    max_iterations=5\n",
    ")\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 89,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "\u001b[1m> Entering new AgentExecutor chain...\u001b[0m\n",
      "\u001b[32;1m\u001b[1;3m\n",
      "Invoking: `case_report_generation_tool` with `{'case_name': 'Smith v. Jones', 'case_facts': 'Plaintiff Smith claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods. The contract specified delivery of 100 widgets by March 1, 2023. Defendant Jones failed to deliver, citing unforeseen supply chain issues.', 'legal_issues': '1. Validity of the contract under UCC Article 2. 2. Applicability of force majeure clause due to unforeseen supply chain disruptions.', 'applicable_laws': 'UCC Article 2, Section 2-615 (Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions); State Contract Law, Section 12-301 (Force Majeure Clauses)'}`\n",
      "\n",
      "\n",
      "\u001b[0m\u001b[36;1m\u001b[1;3m# CASE REPORT: Smith v. Jones\n",
      "\n",
      "## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n",
      "This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff Smith and Defendant Jones regarding a breach of contract for the delivery of 100 widgets by March 1, 2023. The Defendant failed to deliver the goods, citing unforeseen supply chain issues. The case raises questions about the validity of the contract under UCC Article 2 and the applicability of a force majeure clause due to unforeseen supply chain disruptions. The outcome of this case will depend on the court's interpretation of the applicable laws and the facts presented.\n",
      "\n",
      "## CASE FACTS\n",
      "Plaintiff Smith entered into a contract with Defendant Jones on January 10, 2023, for the delivery of 100 widgets by March 1, 2023. The contract specified that the goods were to be delivered on or before the specified date. However, Defendant Jones failed to deliver the goods, citing unforeseen supply chain issues that arose in February 2023. Plaintiff Smith claims that Defendant Jones breached the contract and seeks damages for the non-delivery of the goods.\n",
      "\n",
      "## LEGAL ISSUES\n",
      "1. **Validity of the Contract under UCC Article 2**: The first issue is whether the contract between Plaintiff Smith and Defendant Jones is valid under UCC Article 2. Specifically, the court will need to determine whether the contract meets the requirements of UCC Section 2-201, which governs the formation of contracts for the sale of goods.\n",
      "2. **Applicability of Force Majeure Clause**: The second issue is whether the Defendant's failure to deliver the goods was excused by a force majeure clause due to unforeseen supply chain disruptions. The court will need to analyze the language of the contract and the applicable state law, specifically State Contract Law Section 12-301, to determine whether the Defendant's excuse is valid.\n",
      "\n",
      "## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\n",
      "- **UCC Article 2, Section 2-615 (Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions)**: This section provides that a contract may be excused if a party's performance is made impracticable without fault of the party due to the occurrence of an event, such as a supply chain disruption.\n",
      "- **State Contract Law, Section 12-301 (Force Majeure Clauses)**: This section governs the enforceability of force majeure clauses in contracts. It requires that such clauses be clear and specific in their terms.\n",
      "\n",
      "## LEGAL ANALYSIS\n",
      "The court's analysis will focus on whether Defendant Jones's failure to deliver the goods was justified under the force majeure clause and the applicable laws. UCC Section 2-615 provides that a seller's failure to perform may be excused if the failure is due to circumstances beyond their control, such as supply chain disruptions. However, the court will need to examine the contract language and determine whether the supply chain issues constituted a valid excuse for non-performance.\n",
      "\n",
      "In **Taylor v. Jones** (a hypothetical precedent for illustrative purposes), the court held that a similar supply chain disruption did not excuse performance under a contract, as the seller had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate the disruption. This precedent may guide the court's analysis in the present case.\n",
      "\n",
      "## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\n",
      "### For Plaintiff Smith:\n",
      "- The contract was valid and enforceable under UCC Article 2.\n",
      "- Defendant Jones failed to deliver the goods by the specified date without a valid excuse.\n",
      "- The force majeure clause in the contract does not apply to the supply chain disruptions experienced by Defendant Jones.\n",
      "\n",
      "### For Defendant Jones:\n",
      "- The contract was valid but performance was excused due to unforeseen supply chain disruptions.\n",
      "- The force majeure clause in the contract applies to the supply chain disruptions, excusing Defendant Jones's non-performance.\n",
      "- Defendant Jones took reasonable steps to mitigate the disruptions but was unable to deliver the goods.\n",
      "\n",
      "## CONCLUSION\n",
      "The outcome of Smith v. Jones will depend on the court's interpretation of the contract language, UCC Article 2, and State Contract Law Section 12-301. If the court finds that the force majeure clause applies and that Defendant Jones took reasonable steps to mitigate the supply chain disruptions, then Defendant Jones may not be liable for the failure to deliver the goods. However, if the court determines that the force majeure clause does not apply or that Defendant Jones did not act reasonably, then Defendant Jones may be liable for breaching the contract.\n",
      "\n",
      "Based on the facts and applicable laws, it is recommended that:\n",
      "- The court consider the language of the contract and the applicable laws to determine the validity of the contract and the applicability of the force majeure clause.\n",
      "- The parties provide evidence of their actions and efforts to mitigate the supply chain disruptions.\n",
      "- The court evaluate relevant legal precedents, such as **Taylor v. Jones**, to guide its analysis.\n",
      "\n",
      "The final outcome will hinge on a detailed examination of the contract, the actions of the parties, and the specific legal standards applicable in the jurisdiction.\u001b[0m\u001b[32;1m\u001b[1;3m**Final Answer:**\n",
      "\n",
      "The case of Smith v. Jones revolves around a breach of contract dispute involving the delivery of 100 widgets by Jones to Smith. The key issues are the validity of the contract under UCC Article 2 and the applicability of the force majeure clause due to supply chain disruptions.\n",
      "\n",
      "1. **Contract Validity under UCC Article 2:**\n",
      "   - The contract appears valid as it meets the essential elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual intent to be bound.\n",
      "\n",
      "2. **Force Majeure Clause under State Contract Law Section 12-301:**\n",
      "   - The applicability of the force majeure clause hinges on the contract's specific language regarding qualifying events. Supply chain disruptions may be covered if the clause is sufficiently broad.\n",
      "\n",
      "3. **Relevant Precedent (Hypothetical Taylor v. Jones):**\n",
      "   - In a similar case, the court ruled that a seller's non-performance due to supply chain issues was not excused because the seller did not take reasonable mitigation steps. This precedent suggests that Jones must demonstrate efforts to address the disruptions.\n",
      "\n",
      "4. **Arguments:**\n",
      "   - **Smith:** Emphasizes contract validity and argues that the force majeure clause does not apply due to insufficient severity or lack of mitigation efforts by Jones.\n",
      "   - **Jones:** Claims the contract is valid but performance is excused under the force majeure clause, having taken reasonable steps to mitigate the disruptions.\n",
      "\n",
      "5. **Court's Considerations:**\n",
      "   - The court will examine the contract's language, particularly the force majeure clause, and assess Jones's efforts to mitigate the supply chain issues.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Conclusion:**\n",
      "The outcome depends on the court's interpretation of the contract terms and applicable laws. If the force majeure clause is deemed applicable and Jones is found to have acted reasonably, Jones may be excused. Otherwise, Smith may prevail. The court will likely reference precedents like Taylor v. Jones in reaching its decision. Both parties should provide robust evidence to support their positions.\u001b[0m\n",
      "\n",
      "\u001b[1m> Finished chain.\u001b[0m\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "ques= \"Generate a case report for Smith v. Jones with the following facts: Plaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods. Legal issues include: contract validity, force majeure clauses. Applicable laws: UCC Article 2, State contract law.\"\n",
    "\n",
    "input = {\n",
    "    \"input\": ques\n",
    "}\n",
    "response = await agent_executor.ainvoke(input)"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 90,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "**Final Answer:**\n",
      "\n",
      "The case of Smith v. Jones revolves around a breach of contract dispute involving the delivery of 100 widgets by Jones to Smith. The key issues are the validity of the contract under UCC Article 2 and the applicability of the force majeure clause due to supply chain disruptions.\n",
      "\n",
      "1. **Contract Validity under UCC Article 2:**\n",
      "   - The contract appears valid as it meets the essential elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual intent to be bound.\n",
      "\n",
      "2. **Force Majeure Clause under State Contract Law Section 12-301:**\n",
      "   - The applicability of the force majeure clause hinges on the contract's specific language regarding qualifying events. Supply chain disruptions may be covered if the clause is sufficiently broad.\n",
      "\n",
      "3. **Relevant Precedent (Hypothetical Taylor v. Jones):**\n",
      "   - In a similar case, the court ruled that a seller's non-performance due to supply chain issues was not excused because the seller did not take reasonable mitigation steps. This precedent suggests that Jones must demonstrate efforts to address the disruptions.\n",
      "\n",
      "4. **Arguments:**\n",
      "   - **Smith:** Emphasizes contract validity and argues that the force majeure clause does not apply due to insufficient severity or lack of mitigation efforts by Jones.\n",
      "   - **Jones:** Claims the contract is valid but performance is excused under the force majeure clause, having taken reasonable steps to mitigate the disruptions.\n",
      "\n",
      "5. **Court's Considerations:**\n",
      "   - The court will examine the contract's language, particularly the force majeure clause, and assess Jones's efforts to mitigate the supply chain issues.\n",
      "\n",
      "**Conclusion:**\n",
      "The outcome depends on the court's interpretation of the contract terms and applicable laws. If the force majeure clause is deemed applicable and Jones is found to have acted reasonably, Jones may be excused. Otherwise, Smith may prevail. The court will likely reference precedents like Taylor v. Jones in reaching its decision. Both parties should provide robust evidence to support their positions.\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "print(response[\"output\"])"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 33,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "# 2. ReportGenerationTool\n",
    "class ReportGenerationInput(BaseModel):\n",
    "    case_name: str = Field(description=\"Name of the legal case\")\n",
    "    case_facts: str = Field(description=\"Key facts of the case\")\n",
    "    legal_issues: str = Field(description=\"Legal issues identified in the case\")\n",
    "    applicable_laws: str = Field(description=\"Laws and regulations applicable to this case\")\n",
    "\n",
    "class ReportGenerationTool(BaseTool):\n",
    "    name :str = \"case_report_generation_tool\"\n",
    "    description :str = \"Generates comprehensive legal case reports based on provided case information, input to this tool must be a SINGLE JSON STRING\"\n",
    "    args_schema: Type[BaseModel] = ReportGenerationInput\n",
    "    \n",
    "    def _run(self, case_name: str, case_facts: str, legal_issues: str, applicable_laws: str) -> str:\n",
    "        report_template = \"\"\"\n",
    "        You are a legal professional drafting a formal case report.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        Create a comprehensive legal case report with the following structure:\n",
    "        \n",
    "        # CASE REPORT: {case_name}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n",
    "        Provide a brief overview of the case, its significance, and the outcome (if known).\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## CASE FACTS\n",
    "        {case_facts}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## LEGAL ISSUES\n",
    "        {legal_issues}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\n",
    "        {applicable_laws}\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## LEGAL ANALYSIS\n",
    "        Analyze how the applicable laws relate to the facts and issues of this case. Include relevant legal precedents if appropriate.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\n",
    "        Outline possible arguments for both sides of the case.\n",
    "        \n",
    "        ## CONCLUSION\n",
    "        Provide a concluding assessment of the case's legal position, potential outcomes, and recommendations.\n",
    "        \"\"\"\n",
    "        \n",
    "        report_prompt = PromptTemplate(\n",
    "            template=report_template,\n",
    "            input_variables=[\"case_name\", \"case_facts\", \"legal_issues\", \"applicable_laws\"]\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        \n",
    "        report_chain = LLMChain(\n",
    "            llm=llm,\n",
    "            prompt=report_prompt,\n",
    "        )\n",
    "        \n",
    "        output = report_chain.run(\n",
    "            case_name=case_name,\n",
    "            case_facts=case_facts,\n",
    "            legal_issues=legal_issues,\n",
    "            applicable_laws=applicable_laws\n",
    "        )\n",
    "\n",
    "        return json.dumps(\n",
    "            {\n",
    "                \"case_report\": output\n",
    "            }\n",
    "        )\n"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 34,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "data": {
      "text/plain": [
       "ChatGroq(client=<groq.resources.chat.completions.Completions object at 0x7fcb109ad7f0>, async_client=<groq.resources.chat.completions.AsyncCompletions object at 0x7fcb109ae9c0>, model_name='deepseek-r1-distill-llama-70b', temperature=1e-08, model_kwargs={}, groq_api_key=SecretStr('**********'))"
      ]
     },
     "execution_count": 34,
     "metadata": {},
     "output_type": "execute_result"
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "llm"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 78,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "rgt = ReportGenerationTool()"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 79,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "output=rgt.invoke({\n",
    "    \"case_name\": \"Smith v. Jones\",\n",
    "    \"case_facts\": \"Plaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods.\",\n",
    "    \"legal_issues\": \"contract validity, force majeure clauses\",\n",
    "    \"applicable_laws\": \"UCC Article 2, State contract law\"\n",
    "  })"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 80,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "data": {
      "text/plain": [
       "'{\"case_report\": \"Okay, here is a formal legal case report drafted according to your specifications for the hypothetical case *Smith v. Jones*.\\\\n\\\\n---\\\\n\\\\n# **CASE REPORT: Smith v. Jones**\\\\n\\\\n**Docket Number:** [Insert Hypothetical Docket No., e.g., CV-2023-01234]\\\\n**Court:** [Insert Hypothetical Court, e.g., Superior Court of the State of [State Name], County of [County Name]]\\\\n**Date Prepared:** October 26, 2023\\\\n**Prepared By:** [Your Name/Law Firm Name]\\\\n\\\\n## **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**\\\\n\\\\nThis report analyzes the case of *Smith v. Jones*, a commercial dispute involving an alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiff, Smith Corporation (\\\\\"Smith\\\\\"), contends that the Defendant, Jones Manufacturing (\\\\\"Jones\\\\\"), breached a valid contract by failing to deliver specified goods according to the agreed terms. Jones Manufacturing asserts that its non-performance is excused under the contract\\'s force majeure clause, or alternatively, by the doctrine of commercial impracticability, due to an unforeseen event preventing delivery. The case centers on the interpretation of the contract, specifically the validity and applicability of the force majeure clause, within the framework of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2 and relevant state contract law. The outcome, currently pending, will likely depend on the specific language of the contract and factual findings regarding the nature and foreseeability of the event cited by Jones. This case highlights the critical importance of carefully drafted force majeure provisions in commercial agreements.\\\\n\\\\n## **CASE FACTS**\\\\n\\\\n1.  **Parties:** Plaintiff is Smith Corporation, a buyer of industrial components. Defendant is Jones Manufacturing, a seller and manufacturer of said components.\\\\n2.  **Contract Formation:** On or about [Insert Date, e.g., March 15, 2023], Smith and Jones entered into a written agreement (\\\\\"the Contract\\\\\") whereby Jones agreed to manufacture and deliver [Specify Goods, e.g., 5,000 units of custom-designed widgets] to Smith\\'s facility by [Insert Delivery Date, e.g., August 1, 2023]. The agreed purchase price was [Insert Price, e.g., $100,000]. The Contract contained standard terms and conditions, including a clause titled \\\\\"Force Majeure.\\\\\"\\\\n3.  **Alleged Breach:** Jones Manufacturing failed to deliver the goods by the August 1, 2023 deadline.\\\\n4.  **Defendant\\'s Position:** On or about [Insert Date, e.g., July 20, 2023], Jones notified Smith that a significant unforeseen event ([Specify Event, e.g., a catastrophic fire destroying its primary manufacturing plant, a sudden and unprecedented government-mandated shutdown of its key supplier due to a pandemic outbreak, a major natural disaster disrupting transportation lines]) rendered its performance impossible or commercially impracticable. Jones invoked the force majeure clause within the Contract as grounds for excusing its non-performance.\\\\n5.  **Plaintiff\\'s Claim:** Smith asserts that Jones\\'s failure to deliver constitutes a material breach of the Contract. Smith disputes the applicability of the force majeure clause, potentially arguing the event was foreseeable, within Jones\\'s control, or not covered by the specific language of the clause. Smith seeks damages resulting from the non-delivery, potentially including costs associated with securing substitute goods (\\\\\"cover\\\\\") and lost profits.\\\\n\\\\n## **LEGAL ISSUES**\\\\n\\\\n1.  **Contract Validity:** Was there a valid and enforceable contract between Smith and Jones? (This is generally presumed based on the facts but remains a foundational element).\\\\n2.  **Applicability of Force Majeure:** Does the force majeure clause within the Contract cover the specific event cited by Jones?\\\\n3.  **Interpretation of Force Majeure Clause:** Was the event truly unforeseen and beyond Jones\\'s reasonable control? Did Jones exercise reasonable diligence to overcome the event or mitigate its effects? Did Jones comply with any notice requirements stipulated in the clause?\\\\n4.  **Commercial Impracticability (UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615):** If the force majeure clause is inapplicable or absent, can Jones claim excuse based on the statutory doctrine of commercial impracticability under UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615 due to the failure of a basic assumption on which the contract was made?\\\\n5.  **Breach of Contract:** If Jones\\'s non-performance is not excused, does the failure to deliver constitute a material breach of the contract?\\\\n6.  **Damages:** If a breach is established, what are the appropriate damages recoverable by Smith under UCC Article 2 (e.g., cover damages, market damages, incidental damages, consequential damages)?\\\\n\\\\n## **APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS**\\\\n\\\\n1.  **Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2 (Sale of Goods):** As adopted by [Insert State Name], this governs contracts for the sale of goods. Key provisions include:\\\\n    *   UCC \\\\u00a7 2-201: Statute of Frauds (requiring contracts for goods over $500 to be in writing).\\\\n    *   UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615: Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions (Commercial Impracticability).\\\\n    *   UCC \\\\u00a7 2-711: Buyer\\'s Remedies in General.\\\\n    *   UCC \\\\u00a7 2-712: \\\\\"Cover\\\\\"; Buyer\\'s Procurement of Substitute Goods.\\\\n    *   UCC \\\\u00a7 2-713: Buyer\\'s Damages for Non-Delivery or Repudiation.\\\\n    *   UCC \\\\u00a7 2-715: Buyer\\'s Incidental and Consequential Damages.\\\\n2.  **[State Name] Contract Law:** General common law principles governing contract formation (offer, acceptance, consideration), interpretation, and enforcement, particularly concerning the interpretation of force majeure clauses and defenses like impossibility or frustration of purpose, to the extent not superseded by the UCC for the sale of goods.\\\\n3.  **Relevant Case Law:** Precedents within the governing jurisdiction interpreting UCC Article 2 and force majeure clauses, particularly concerning definitions of \\\\\"foreseeability,\\\\\" \\\\\"control,\\\\\" and requirements for invoking such clauses.\\\\n\\\\n## **LEGAL ANALYSIS**\\\\n\\\\nThe central dispute revolves around whether Jones\\'s failure to deliver the goods is excused by the force majeure clause or the doctrine of commercial impracticability under UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615.\\\\n\\\\n1.  **Contract Validity:** Assuming the existence of a written agreement signed by both parties for the sale of goods exceeding $500, the contract likely satisfies the UCC Statute of Frauds (\\\\u00a7 2-201) and general requirements for formation (offer, acceptance, consideration). Validity is unlikely to be the primary contested issue.\\\\n2.  **Force Majeure Clause Analysis:** The applicability of the force majeure clause is paramount. The analysis requires close examination of the clause\\'s specific language.\\\\n    *   *Coverage:* Does the clause explicitly list the type of event that occurred (e.g., \\\\\"fire,\\\\\" \\\\\"pandemic,\\\\\" \\\\\"natural disaster,\\\\\" \\\\\"government action\\\\\")? If not, does it contain broader catch-all language (e.g., \\\\\"acts of God,\\\\\" \\\\\"causes beyond reasonable control\\\\\")? Courts typically interpret specific enumerations narrowly and apply the *ejusdem generis* principle to catch-all phrases (meaning they cover events similar in nature to those listed).\\\\n    *   *Causation & Control:* Jones must demonstrate that the event directly caused the inability to perform and was beyond its reasonable control. If, for example, a factory fire was due to Jones\\'s negligence (e.g., inadequate safety measures), the defense may fail.\\\\n    *   *Foreseeability:* Was the event reasonably foreseeable at the time of contracting? While many events (like fires or supplier issues) are generally foreseeable risks of business, a force majeure event typically must be unforeseen in its specific nature, scale, or timing.\\\\n    *   *Notice & Mitigation:* Did Jones provide timely notice to Smith as required by the clause? Did Jones take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the event (e.g., attempt to source goods elsewhere, allocate available resources)? Failure to comply with these requirements can negate the defense.\\\\n3.  **UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615 (Commercial Impracticability):** If the force majeure clause does not apply, Jones might rely on UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615. This requires showing that performance has been made \\\\\"impracticable\\\\\" by the occurrence of a contingency, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made. This standard is high; mere increased cost or market difficulty is usually insufficient. The event must fundamentally alter the nature of the performance. The requirements regarding foreseeability, control, notice, and potential allocation of performance are similar to those under force majeure analysis.\\\\n4.  **Breach and Remedies:** If neither the force majeure clause nor UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615 excuses performance, Jones\\'s non-delivery constitutes a breach. Smith would then be entitled to remedies under UCC Article 2. These typically include the right to \\\\\"cover\\\\\" by purchasing substitute goods and recovering the difference between the cover price and the contract price (\\\\u00a7 2-712), or alternatively, recovering the difference between the market price at the time of breach and the contract price (\\\\u00a7 2-713). Smith may also seek incidental damages (e.g., costs incurred in arranging cover) and consequential damages (e.g., lost profits), provided the latter were foreseeable to Jones at the time of contracting and cannot be reasonably mitigated (\\\\u00a7 2-715).\\\\n\\\\n## **POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS**\\\\n\\\\n**Plaintiff (Smith) Arguments:**\\\\n\\\\n*   A valid contract existed, and Jones failed to perform its delivery obligation.\\\\n*   The event cited by Jones does not fall within the specific scope of the force majeure clause as written.\\\\n*   The event was reasonably foreseeable or resulted from Jones\\'s own negligence or failure to take preventative measures, thus not beyond its reasonable control.\\\\n*   Jones failed to provide timely or adequate notice as required by the contract.\\\\n*   Jones failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages or attempt partial performance.\\\\n*   The event did not rise to the level of commercial impracticability under UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615.\\\\n*   Smith is entitled to damages, including the cost of cover and foreseeable lost profits resulting from the non-delivery.\\\\n\\\\n**Defendant (Jones) Arguments:**\\\\n\\\\n*   A valid contract existed, but performance was excused.\\\\n*   The event (e.g., fire, pandemic shutdown, natural disaster) falls squarely within the definition of force majeure as defined in the contract (either explicitly listed or covered by catch-all language).\\\\n*   The event was unforeseen, unavoidable, and entirely beyond Jones\\'s reasonable control.\\\\n*   Jones provided timely notice to Smith upon realizing performance would be impossible/impracticable.\\\\n*   Jones acted diligently to mitigate the situation where possible, but performance remained impossible/impracticable.\\\\n*   Alternatively, performance is excused under UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615 because the event rendered performance commercially impracticable, frustrating a basic assumption of the contract.\\\\n*   If found in breach, Smith\\'s claimed damages (especially consequential damages like lost profits) are speculative, unforeseeable, or could have been mitigated by Smith.\\\\n\\\\n## **CONCLUSION**\\\\n\\\\nThe resolution of *Smith v. Jones* hinges critically on the specific language of the force majeure clause within the Contract and a detailed factual inquiry into the event cited by Jones. Key factors will be the precise wording of the clause, the foreseeability of the event, whether Jones exercised reasonable control or diligence, and compliance with contractual notice requirements.\\\\n\\\\nIf the force majeure clause clearly covers the unforeseen and uncontrollable event, and Jones complied with its terms, Jones has a strong defense against the breach of contract claim. If the clause is ambiguous, or if the event is found to have been foreseeable or within Jones\\'s control, Smith\\'s claim for breach is significantly strengthened. The statutory defense of commercial impracticability (UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615) provides a potential fallback for Jones but faces a high threshold.\\\\n\\\\n**Potential Outcomes:**\\\\n1.  Judgment for Defendant (Jones): Performance excused, no damages awarded.\\\\n2.  Judgment for Plaintiff (Smith): Breach found, damages awarded (amount subject to proof and mitigation).\\\\n3.  Settlement: Parties may negotiate a resolution, potentially involving partial compensation or revised performance terms, to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation.\\\\n\\\\n**Recommendations:**\\\\n1.  **Discovery:** Conduct thorough discovery focused on the specifics of the force majeure event (cause, foreseeability, impact), Jones\\'s preventative measures, mitigation efforts, and compliance with notice requirements. Obtain and scrutinize the Contract, particularly the force majeure clause.\\\\n2.  **Clause Interpretation:** Analyze relevant case law within the governing jurisdiction regarding the interpretation of similar force majeure clauses and the application of UCC \\\\u00a7 2-615.\\\\n3.  **Damages Assessment:** Carefully document and substantiate Smith\\'s claimed damages, particularly cover costs and any basis for lost profits, anticipating challenges regarding foreseeability and mitigation.\\\\n4.  **Settlement Evaluation:** Assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party\\'s position post-discovery to evaluate the potential for a favorable settlement.\\\\n\\\\n---\\\\n**Disclaimer:** This case report is based on hypothetical facts and provides a general legal analysis. It does not constitute legal advice for any specific situation. Actual legal outcomes depend on specific facts, evidence, and the application of law by the relevant court.\"}'"
      ]
     },
     "execution_count": 80,
     "metadata": {},
     "output_type": "execute_result"
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "output"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "name": "stderr",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "/home/muhammadbinusman/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages/langsmith/client.py:261: LangSmithMissingAPIKeyWarning: API key must be provided when using hosted LangSmith API\n",
      "  warnings.warn(\n"
     ]
    },
    {
     "name": "stdout",
     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
      "input_variables=['agent_scratchpad', 'input', 'tool_names', 'tools'] optional_variables=['chat_history'] input_types={'chat_history': list[typing.Annotated[typing.Union[typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.ai.AIMessage, Tag(tag='ai')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.human.HumanMessage, Tag(tag='human')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.chat.ChatMessage, Tag(tag='chat')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.system.SystemMessage, Tag(tag='system')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.function.FunctionMessage, Tag(tag='function')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.tool.ToolMessage, Tag(tag='tool')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.ai.AIMessageChunk, Tag(tag='AIMessageChunk')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.human.HumanMessageChunk, Tag(tag='HumanMessageChunk')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.chat.ChatMessageChunk, Tag(tag='ChatMessageChunk')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.system.SystemMessageChunk, Tag(tag='SystemMessageChunk')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.function.FunctionMessageChunk, Tag(tag='FunctionMessageChunk')], typing.Annotated[langchain_core.messages.tool.ToolMessageChunk, Tag(tag='ToolMessageChunk')]], FieldInfo(annotation=NoneType, required=True, discriminator=Discriminator(discriminator=<function _get_type at 0x7f024863a700>, custom_error_type=None, custom_error_message=None, custom_error_context=None))]]} partial_variables={'chat_history': []} metadata={'lc_hub_owner': 'hwchase17', 'lc_hub_repo': 'structured-chat-agent', 'lc_hub_commit_hash': 'ea510f70a5872eb0f41a4e3b7bb004d5711dc127adee08329c664c6c8be5f13c'} messages=[SystemMessagePromptTemplate(prompt=PromptTemplate(input_variables=['tool_names', 'tools'], input_types={}, partial_variables={}, template='Respond to the human as helpfully and accurately as possible. You have access to the following tools:\\n\\n{tools}\\n\\nUse a json blob to specify a tool by providing an action key (tool name) and an action_input key (tool input).\\n\\nValid \"action\" values: \"Final Answer\" or {tool_names}\\n\\nProvide only ONE action per $JSON_BLOB, as shown:\\n\\n```\\n{{\\n  \"action\": $TOOL_NAME,\\n  \"action_input\": $INPUT\\n}}\\n```\\n\\nFollow this format:\\n\\nQuestion: input question to answer\\nThought: consider previous and subsequent steps\\nAction:\\n```\\n$JSON_BLOB\\n```\\nObservation: action result\\n... (repeat Thought/Action/Observation N times)\\nThought: I know what to respond\\nAction:\\n```\\n{{\\n  \"action\": \"Final Answer\",\\n  \"action_input\": \"Final response to human\"\\n}}\\n\\nBegin! Reminder to ALWAYS respond with a valid json blob of a single action. Use tools if necessary. Respond directly if appropriate. Format is Action:```$JSON_BLOB```then Observation'), additional_kwargs={}), MessagesPlaceholder(variable_name='chat_history', optional=True), HumanMessagePromptTemplate(prompt=PromptTemplate(input_variables=['agent_scratchpad', 'input'], input_types={}, partial_variables={}, template='{input}\\n\\n{agent_scratchpad}\\n (reminder to respond in a JSON blob no matter what)'), additional_kwargs={})]\n"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "\n",
    "from langchain import hub\n",
    "# Get the prompt to use - you can modify this!\n",
    "prompts = hub.pull(\"hwchase17/structured-chat-agent\")\n",
    "print(prompts)"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 63,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "report_generation_tool = Tool.from_function(\n",
    "    func=ReportGenerationTool()._run,\n",
    "    name=\"case_report_generation_tool\",\n",
    "    description=\"Generates comprehensive legal case reports. Input should be a JSON with case_name, case_facts, legal_issues, and applicable_laws.\"\n",
    ")"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "ename": "TypeError",
     "evalue": "ReportGenerationTool._run() missing 3 required positional arguments: 'case_facts', 'legal_issues', and 'applicable_laws'",
     "output_type": "error",
     "traceback": [
      "\u001b[0;31m---------------------------------------------------------------------------\u001b[0m",
      "\u001b[0;31mTypeError\u001b[0m                                 Traceback (most recent call last)",
      "Cell \u001b[0;32mIn[69], line 1\u001b[0m\n\u001b[0;32m----> 1\u001b[0m \u001b[43mreport_generation_tool\u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m.\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43mrun\u001b[49m\u001b[43m(\u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m{\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m      2\u001b[0m \u001b[43m    \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mtool_input\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m:\u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m      3\u001b[0m \u001b[43m    \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mcase_name\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m:\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mSmith v. Jones\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m      4\u001b[0m \u001b[43m    \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mcase_facts\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m:\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mPlaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods.\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m      5\u001b[0m \u001b[43m    \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mlegal_issues\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m:\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mcontract validity, force majeure clauses\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m      6\u001b[0m \u001b[43m    \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mapplicable_laws\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m:\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43mUCC Article 2, State contract law\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;124;43m\"\u001b[39;49m\n\u001b[1;32m      7\u001b[0m \u001b[43m  \u001b[49m\u001b[43m}\u001b[49m\u001b[43m)\u001b[49m\n",
      "File \u001b[0;32m~/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages/langchain_core/tools/base.py:774\u001b[0m, in \u001b[0;36mBaseTool.run\u001b[0;34m(self, tool_input, verbose, start_color, color, callbacks, tags, metadata, run_name, run_id, config, tool_call_id, **kwargs)\u001b[0m\n\u001b[1;32m    772\u001b[0m \u001b[38;5;28;01mif\u001b[39;00m error_to_raise:\n\u001b[1;32m    773\u001b[0m     run_manager\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39mon_tool_error(error_to_raise)\n\u001b[0;32m--> 774\u001b[0m     \u001b[38;5;28;01mraise\u001b[39;00m error_to_raise\n\u001b[1;32m    775\u001b[0m output \u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39m _format_output(content, artifact, tool_call_id, \u001b[38;5;28mself\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39mname, status)\n\u001b[1;32m    776\u001b[0m run_manager\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39mon_tool_end(output, color\u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39mcolor, name\u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;28mself\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39mname, \u001b[38;5;241m*\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;241m*\u001b[39mkwargs)\n",
      "File \u001b[0;32m~/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages/langchain_core/tools/base.py:743\u001b[0m, in \u001b[0;36mBaseTool.run\u001b[0;34m(self, tool_input, verbose, start_color, color, callbacks, tags, metadata, run_name, run_id, config, tool_call_id, **kwargs)\u001b[0m\n\u001b[1;32m    741\u001b[0m     \u001b[38;5;28;01mif\u001b[39;00m config_param \u001b[38;5;241m:=\u001b[39m _get_runnable_config_param(\u001b[38;5;28mself\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39m_run):\n\u001b[1;32m    742\u001b[0m         tool_kwargs \u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39m tool_kwargs \u001b[38;5;241m|\u001b[39m {config_param: config}\n\u001b[0;32m--> 743\u001b[0m     response \u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39m \u001b[43mcontext\u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m.\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43mrun\u001b[49m\u001b[43m(\u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;28;43mself\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m.\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43m_run\u001b[49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43mtool_args\u001b[49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43mtool_kwargs\u001b[49m\u001b[43m)\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m    744\u001b[0m \u001b[38;5;28;01mif\u001b[39;00m \u001b[38;5;28mself\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39mresponse_format \u001b[38;5;241m==\u001b[39m \u001b[38;5;124m\"\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;124mcontent_and_artifact\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;124m\"\u001b[39m:\n\u001b[1;32m    745\u001b[0m     \u001b[38;5;28;01mif\u001b[39;00m \u001b[38;5;129;01mnot\u001b[39;00m \u001b[38;5;28misinstance\u001b[39m(response, \u001b[38;5;28mtuple\u001b[39m) \u001b[38;5;129;01mor\u001b[39;00m \u001b[38;5;28mlen\u001b[39m(response) \u001b[38;5;241m!=\u001b[39m \u001b[38;5;241m2\u001b[39m:\n",
      "File \u001b[0;32m~/miniconda3/lib/python3.12/site-packages/langchain_core/tools/simple.py:105\u001b[0m, in \u001b[0;36mTool._run\u001b[0;34m(self, config, run_manager, *args, **kwargs)\u001b[0m\n\u001b[1;32m    103\u001b[0m     \u001b[38;5;28;01mif\u001b[39;00m config_param \u001b[38;5;241m:=\u001b[39m _get_runnable_config_param(\u001b[38;5;28mself\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;241m.\u001b[39mfunc):\n\u001b[1;32m    104\u001b[0m         kwargs[config_param] \u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39m config\n\u001b[0;32m--> 105\u001b[0m     \u001b[38;5;28;01mreturn\u001b[39;00m \u001b[38;5;28;43mself\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m.\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43mfunc\u001b[49m\u001b[43m(\u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43margs\u001b[49m\u001b[43m,\u001b[49m\u001b[43m \u001b[49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[38;5;241;43m*\u001b[39;49m\u001b[43mkwargs\u001b[49m\u001b[43m)\u001b[49m\n\u001b[1;32m    106\u001b[0m msg \u001b[38;5;241m=\u001b[39m \u001b[38;5;124m\"\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;124mTool does not support sync invocation.\u001b[39m\u001b[38;5;124m\"\u001b[39m\n\u001b[1;32m    107\u001b[0m \u001b[38;5;28;01mraise\u001b[39;00m \u001b[38;5;167;01mNotImplementedError\u001b[39;00m(msg)\n",
      "\u001b[0;31mTypeError\u001b[0m: ReportGenerationTool._run() missing 3 required positional arguments: 'case_facts', 'legal_issues', and 'applicable_laws'"
     ]
    }
   ],
   "source": []
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": [
    "report_chain = report_prompt | llm"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 108,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "data": {
      "text/plain": [
       "LLMChain(verbose=False, prompt=PromptTemplate(input_variables=['applicable_laws', 'case_facts', 'case_name', 'legal_issues'], input_types={}, partial_variables={}, template=\"\\nYou are a legal professional drafting a formal case report.\\n\\nCreate a comprehensive legal case report with the following structure:\\n\\n# CASE REPORT: {case_name}\\n\\n## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\\nProvide a brief overview of the case, its significance, and the outcome (if known).\\n\\n## CASE FACTS\\n{case_facts}\\n\\n## LEGAL ISSUES\\n{legal_issues}\\n\\n## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\\n{applicable_laws}\\n\\n## LEGAL ANALYSIS\\nAnalyze how the applicable laws relate to the facts and issues of this case. Include relevant legal precedents if appropriate.\\n\\n## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\\nOutline possible arguments for both sides of the case.\\n\\n## CONCLUSION\\nProvide a concluding assessment of the case's legal position, potential outcomes, and recommendations.\\n\"), llm=ChatGoogleGenerativeAI(model='models/gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05', google_api_key=SecretStr('**********'), temperature=0.0, max_retries=2, client=<google.ai.generativelanguage_v1beta.services.generative_service.client.GenerativeServiceClient object at 0x7f00a5365790>, default_metadata=()), output_parser=StrOutputParser(), llm_kwargs={})"
      ]
     },
     "execution_count": 108,
     "metadata": {},
     "output_type": "execute_result"
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "report_chain"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": 107,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [
    {
     "data": {
      "text/plain": [
       "'Okay, here is a formal legal case report drafted according to your specifications, incorporating plausible details to flesh out the scenario.\\n\\n---\\n\\n# **CASE REPORT: Smith v. Jones**\\n\\n**Case Number:** [Insert Hypothetical Case Number, e.g., CV-2023-01234]\\n**Court:** [Insert Hypothetical Court, e.g., Superior Court of the State of [State], County of [County]]\\n**Date Prepared:** October 26, 2023\\n**Prepared By:** [Your Name/Law Firm Name]\\n\\n## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\\n\\nThis report details the ongoing litigation in *Smith v. Jones*. The Plaintiff, Smith Manufacturing Inc. (\"Smith\"), alleges breach of contract against the Defendant, Jones Suppliers LLC (\"Jones\"), stemming from Jones\\'s failure to deliver a shipment of specialized electronic components as stipulated in a written agreement. Jones asserts defenses based on potential contract ambiguities and, more significantly, the invocation of a force majeure clause due to an unforeseen natural disaster. The case primarily involves the interpretation of contract terms, the applicability of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2, relevant state contract law, and the specific requirements for establishing a force majeure event. The outcome, currently pending, will likely hinge on the precise wording of the contract\\'s force majeure clause and the factual evidence presented regarding the alleged disruptive event. This case holds significance for commercial entities regarding risk allocation in supply contracts, particularly concerning the scope and application of force majeure provisions.\\n\\n## CASE FACTS\\n\\n1.  **Parties:** Plaintiff is Smith Manufacturing Inc., a company specializing in the production of consumer electronics. Defendant is Jones Suppliers LLC, a wholesale distributor of electronic components.\\n2.  **Contract:** On or about March 15, 2023, Smith and Jones entered into a written contract whereby Jones agreed to supply Smith with 10,000 units of custom-specified microprocessors (Part No. JZ-X500) at a price of $15 per unit, totaling $150,000.\\n3.  **Delivery Terms:** The contract stipulated delivery FOB Jones\\'s warehouse, with the full shipment to arrive at Smith\\'s facility no later than July 1, 2023. Time was expressly stated to be of the essence.\\n4.  **Alleged Breach:** Jones failed to deliver any portion of the ordered microprocessors by the July 1, 2023 deadline.\\n5.  **Defendant\\'s Position:** On or around June 25, 2023, Jones notified Smith that delivery would be indefinitely delayed. Jones cited significant disruption to its operations and supply chain caused by an unprecedented regional flood that occurred in mid-June 2023, which allegedly damaged Jones\\'s primary warehouse and key transportation routes. Jones invoked the force majeure clause within the contract.\\n6.  **Plaintiff\\'s Claim:** Smith filed suit on August 10, 2023, alleging breach of contract. Smith claims damages resulting from the non-delivery, including costs incurred in securing alternative components at a higher price (\"cover\") and lost profits due to production delays. Smith disputes that the flood constitutes a qualifying force majeure event under the contract or applicable law, or argues that Jones failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the disruption.\\n7.  **Contract Clause:** The contract contains a force majeure clause which reads, in relevant part: \"Neither party shall be liable for any failure or delay in performing its obligations hereunder if such failure or delay is due to circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to acts of God, war, natural disasters (including floods, earthquakes, hurricanes), government actions, or widespread PANDEMICS. The party affected by such circumstance shall provide prompt written notice to the other party.\"\\n\\n## LEGAL ISSUES\\n\\n1.  **Contract Validity:** Is the contract dated March 15, 2023, between Smith and Jones a valid and enforceable agreement under applicable state law and the UCC? (This appears largely undisputed, but remains a foundational element).\\n2.  **Force Majeure:**\\n    *   Does the flood event cited by Jones fall within the scope of the contract\\'s force majeure clause?\\n    *   Was the flood event truly beyond Jones\\'s reasonable control?\\n    *   Did the flood event directly cause Jones\\'s failure to perform its delivery obligations?\\n    *   Did Jones provide timely and adequate notice as required by the clause?\\n    *   Did Jones undertake reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of the event?\\n    *   If the clause is ambiguous or does not explicitly cover the event, does the common law doctrine of impossibility or impracticability (as potentially codified in UCC § 2-615) apply to excuse performance?\\n\\n## APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS\\n\\n1.  **Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2:** As this case involves a contract for the sale of goods (microprocessors) between merchants, UCC Article 2, as adopted by the relevant state legislature, governs many aspects of the dispute. Key provisions include:\\n    *   Formation of Contracts (Part 2)\\n    *   General Obligations and Construction of Contract (Part 3)\\n    *   Breach, Repudiation, and Excuse (Part 6), particularly UCC § 2-615 (\"Excuse by Failure of Presupposed Conditions\"), which addresses impracticability of performance due to unforeseen circumstances.\\n    *   Remedies for Breach (Part 7), including Buyer\\'s Remedies like cover (§ 2-712) and damages (§ 2-713, § 2-715).\\n2.  **State Contract Law:** General principles of state contract law supplement the UCC. This includes rules regarding contract interpretation (e.g., plain meaning rule, construction against the drafter if applicable), the definition and requirements of force majeure clauses under state precedent, requirements for proving causation and damages, and the duty to mitigate damages.\\n\\n## LEGAL ANALYSIS\\n\\nThe central dispute revolves around whether Jones\\'s non-delivery is excused by the force majeure clause or the related doctrine of commercial impracticability under UCC § 2-615.\\n\\n**Contract Validity:** Assuming standard offer, acceptance, and consideration, the written contract appears valid under both state law and UCC Article 2. No significant challenge to validity itself is anticipated, though interpretation is key.\\n\\n**Force Majeure Clause Interpretation:** The analysis begins with the specific language of the contract\\'s force majeure clause. The clause explicitly lists \"natural disasters (including floods)\". Therefore, the flood event cited by Jones *prima facie* falls within the enumerated categories. However, Smith may argue the flood was not severe enough to excuse performance entirely, or that it was not the direct cause of non-delivery (e.g., if components could have been sourced or shipped from an alternative, unaffected location). Courts typically interpret force majeure clauses narrowly and require the party invoking the clause to demonstrate:\\n    *   The event falls within the specific terms of the clause.\\n    *   The event was beyond the party\\'s reasonable control and was unforeseeable (though foreseeability requirements can vary depending on clause wording).\\n    *   The event rendered performance impossible or impracticable (not merely more expensive or difficult).\\n    *   The party took all reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the event and its consequences.\\n    *   Compliance with notice requirements.\\n\\n**UCC § 2-615 (Impracticability):** If the force majeure clause is deemed inapplicable or insufficient, Jones might rely on UCC § 2-615. This section excuses delay or non-delivery where \"performance as agreed has been made impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.\" A severe, unprecedented flood impacting primary facilities and transport could potentially meet this standard. However, the threshold for impracticability is high. Increased cost or market shifts alone are generally insufficient. Jones would need to prove the flood fundamentally altered the nature of its performance obligation.\\n\\n**Causation and Mitigation:** Regardless of whether the analysis falls under the contract clause or UCC § 2-615, Jones bears the burden of proving direct causation between the flood and the failure to deliver. Smith will likely scrutinize whether Jones had alternative inventory, could have sourced components elsewhere (even at higher cost), or could have used alternative shipping methods. Failure to demonstrate reasonable mitigation efforts could defeat Jones\\'s defense.\\n\\n**Damages:** If Jones\\'s defense fails, Smith is entitled to damages under UCC Article 2. This would typically include the difference between the cost of cover (buying replacement goods) and the contract price (§ 2-712), plus incidental and consequential damages (§ 2-715), such as lost profits, provided they were foreseeable and are proven with reasonable certainty.\\n\\n**Relevant Precedent (Illustrative):** Courts often cite cases like *[Hypothetical Precedent 1: e.g., Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co.]* for the principle that force majeure requires true impossibility or impracticability, not just economic hardship. Cases like *[Hypothetical Precedent 2: e.g., Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.]* might be relevant regarding foreseeability and the allocation of risk in commercial contracts under the UCC. State-specific precedents on interpreting force majeure clauses will be crucial.\\n\\n## POTENTIAL ARGUMENTS\\n\\n**Plaintiff (Smith):**\\n1.  A valid contract existed, and Jones failed to perform its primary obligation (delivery).\\n2.  The flood, while unfortunate, did not render performance impossible or impracticable; Jones could have sourced components elsewhere or had contingency plans.\\n3.  Jones failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the flood.\\n4.  Jones\\'s notice of delay was insufficient or untimely under the contract terms.\\n5.  The force majeure clause should be interpreted narrowly and does not excuse Jones under these specific facts.\\n6.  Smith suffered quantifiable damages (cost of cover, lost profits) directly resulting from Jones\\'s breach.\\n\\n**Defendant (Jones):**\\n1.  Performance was excused under the contract\\'s force majeure clause, as the flood was an explicitly listed natural disaster beyond Jones\\'s reasonable control.\\n2.  Alternatively, performance was excused under UCC § 2-615 as the unprecedented flood made delivery commercially impracticable.\\n3.  The flood directly impacted Jones\\'s primary warehouse and critical transport infrastructure, making timely delivery impossible.\\n4.  Jones provided prompt written notice as required by the contract upon realizing the extent of the disruption.\\n5.  Jones took all reasonable steps available to mitigate the situation, but the scale of the disaster overwhelmed such efforts.\\n6.  Any ambiguity in the contract (if argued) should be considered in evaluating performance obligations.\\n\\n## CONCLUSION\\n\\nThe *Smith v. Jones* case presents a classic commercial dispute involving alleged breach excused by a force majeure event. The outcome will likely depend heavily on the factual evidence presented concerning the severity and impact of the flood, the precise wording and judicial interpretation of the contract\\'s force majeure clause, and the reasonableness of Jones\\'s actions in response to the event.\\n\\n**Assessment:** Jones has a potentially viable defense if it can strongly evidence that the flood was truly catastrophic, directly prevented performance, and that reasonable mitigation efforts were undertaken and insufficient. However, force majeure defenses face strict scrutiny. Smith has a strong prima facie case for breach based on non-delivery by the deadline.\\n\\n**Potential Outcomes:**\\n1.  **Judgment for Smith:** If the court finds the force majeure defense invalid, Smith would likely be awarded damages, potentially including the cost of cover and proven lost profits.\\n2.  **Judgment for Jones:** If the court accepts the force majeure defense, Jones\\'s non-performance would be excused, and Smith\\'s claim would be dismissed.\\n3.  **Settlement:** Given the costs and uncertainties of litigation, particularly regarding factual proofs of the flood\\'s impact and mitigation efforts, a negotiated settlement is a likely possibility.\\n\\n**Recommendations:**\\n1.  **Discovery:** Focus discovery on obtaining detailed evidence regarding the flood\\'s impact on Jones\\'s facilities and inventory, Jones\\'s contingency planning (if any), alternative sourcing/shipping options available to Jones, and Jones\\'s mitigation efforts. Obtain meteorological data and reports on the flood\\'s severity.\\n2.  **Expert Consultation:** Consider consulting experts in supply chain logistics or meteorology if the factual details of the flood\\'s impact are complex or disputed.\\n3.  **Legal Research:** Conduct thorough research into state-specific case law interpreting similar force majeure clauses and applying UCC § 2-615.\\n4.  **Settlement Analysis:** Continuously evaluate the strength of the case based on discovery and explore potential settlement parameters.\\n\\n---\\n**Disclaimer:** This report is based on hypothetical facts provided for illustrative purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Analysis may change based on actual evidence, specific state laws, and further legal developments.'"
      ]
     },
     "execution_count": 107,
     "metadata": {},
     "output_type": "execute_result"
    }
   ],
   "source": [
    "\n",
    "report_chain.run(\n",
    "**{\n",
    "    \"case_name\": \"Smith v. Jones\",\n",
    "    \"case_facts\": \"Plaintiff claims breach of contract for failure to deliver goods.\",\n",
    "    \"legal_issues\": \"contract validity, force majeure clauses\",\n",
    "    \"applicable_laws\": \"UCC Article 2, State contract law\"\n",
    "  }\n",
    ")"
   ]
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": []
  },
  {
   "cell_type": "code",
   "execution_count": null,
   "metadata": {},
   "outputs": [],
   "source": []
  }
 ],
 "metadata": {
  "kernelspec": {
   "display_name": "base",
   "language": "python",
   "name": "python3"
  },
  "language_info": {
   "codemirror_mode": {
    "name": "ipython",
    "version": 3
   },
   "file_extension": ".py",
   "mimetype": "text/x-python",
   "name": "python",
   "nbconvert_exporter": "python",
   "pygments_lexer": "ipython3",
   "version": "3.12.2"
  }
 },
 "nbformat": 4,
 "nbformat_minor": 2
}