No, not really correct. It was more like IA's arguement was based on multiple former cases being true rather than any one case being an exact match for what they did. For example they argued they can make digital copies of books and cited the Supreme Court case about video taping TV shows. The supreme court ruled copying TV shows was legal where as in this case the judge ruled copying books into a digital format was illegal.

The important thing to note here is this isn't even getting into the issue of the IA sharing books it digitized. That part was just about the act of copying them into a digital format in the first place.

It was honestly a surprising ruling because of how completely he ruled against the IA. The end result could have ultimately been the same even if he agreed with the IA on some points but he didn't which was a real surprise.