Apple and director M. Night Shyamalan have defeated an appeal challenging their victory in a copyright lawsuit over the Apple TV+ series Servant.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s decision in favor of Apple and Shyamalan, dismissing Gregorini’s claim that procedural mistakes during the trial prevented a full examination of whether the Servant team had exposure to her earlier movie.
Gregorini filed her lawsuit in 2020, claiming the first three episodes of Servant closely mirrored her film, which follows a mother bonding with a lifelike doll after losing an infant. She argued that key elements of her story were unlawfully replicated in the TV series.
Background of the Case
This wasn’t the first time the case reached the appellate court. Initially, a lower court threw out Gregorini’s claim, ruling the works weren’t legally similar. But in 2022, the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, stating jurors could reasonably disagree on whether the similarities were substantial enough to warrant a trial.
The ruling allowed the dispute to proceed through discovery and ultimately to a jury trial. The jury subsequently returned a verdict for Apple, Shyamalan, and the other defendants after finding that she had failed to establish that the makers of Servant had access to The Truth About Emanuel before creating the television series.
Appeal and Ruling
Gregorini’s latest appeal focused on the jury instructions regarding access and how the court addressed a question during deliberations. She contended the jurors needed clearer guidance on the various ways to demonstrate that the defendants had viewed her film.
Related Post: Brazil Supreme Court deadlocks over elderly insurance case
The appeals court disagreed, stating the judge didn’t err by using standard instructions without breaking down each method Gregorini could have used to prove access. The dispute also centered on the term ‘widely disseminated,’ which was critical to her argument that her movie was widely available to the defendants.
Instead of defining the term, the judge allowed both sides to present their own interpretations when jurors sought clarification. Gregorini argued the court should have directly answered the question, but the appeals panel ruled the judge acted appropriately in handling the inquiry.
Implications of the Ruling
The decision leaves the defence verdict intact and illustrates the importance of access evidence in copyright litigation involving allegedly similar creative works. Simply noting similarities between two projects isn’t enough to prove one was copied from the other.
For filmmakers, studios, and their legal advisers, the case demonstrates the evidential hurdles that can remain even after a copyright claimant survives an early attempt to dismiss a lawsuit. Similarity may be sufficient to justify further litigation, but a claimant must still establish the factual elements necessary to prove copying at trial. The Ninth Circuit’s latest ruling does not establish new binding precedent because it was issued as an unpublished memorandum disposition. It does, however, leave Apple’s and Shyamalan’s jury victory intact and ends Gregorini’s latest attempt to overturn the trial result at the appellate level.
The case is Gregorini v. Apple Inc., No. 25-3225, before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As the ruling stands, it highlights the challenges copyright claimants face in proving access to a copyrighted work, which is a critical element in establishing infringement.
