The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict in a copyright infringement case involving Francesca Gregorini and Apple Inc. This ruling, filed on October 22, 2026, affects Gregorini, the writer and director of the indie film "The Truth About Emanuel," and the defendants, which include Apple Inc. and several individuals and companies associated with the television series "The Servant." The case highlights important aspects of copyright law, particularly regarding the similarities between creative works and the concept of access.
Francesca Gregorini, the plaintiff in this case, claimed that the first three episodes of "The Servant" bore substantial similarities to her film, "Emanuel." This dispute began when Gregorini filed a copyright lawsuit against Apple Inc. and several other defendants, including filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan and various production companies. The case first reached the Ninth Circuit in 2022, where the court reversed a lower court's dismissal of Gregorini's complaint, stating that reasonable minds could differ on whether the two works were substantially similar.
After the Ninth Circuit's initial ruling, the case went back to the district court, where it proceeded to a jury trial. Following the trial, the jury ruled in favor of the defendants. Gregorini then appealed, challenging a jury instruction related to the concept of access and the district court's decision to accept the jury's verdict without responding to a pending jury question.
The court ruled that Gregorini preserved her objection to the final jury instruction regarding access. According to the court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(1)(B) requires parties to properly request and object to jury instructions. However, the court noted that in this case, a specific objection was not necessary since it was clear that the district court understood Gregorini's concerns about the instruction. The court stated, "Such an objection would have been a pointless formality here." This indicates that the court recognized the importance of the arguments presented by Gregorini throughout the trial.
Furthermore, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 17.18, which outlines how a plaintiff may demonstrate access to a work. The court noted that the instruction provided a fair and accurate reflection of the applicable law. The court stated, "The instruction did not say that widespread dissemination could only be shown through a work’s commercial success; rather, it left open the possibility that the jury could consider commercial success or market saturation, as Gregorini argued during trial." This ruling emphasizes the flexibility that juries have in determining access based on the specific circumstances of each case.
In addition, the court ruled that the district court did not err by accepting the jury's verdict without first addressing a jury request for clarification on the definition of "widely disseminated." The court explained that the district court's decision not to answer the jury's question was appropriate, as the jury did not need the clarification to reach a unanimous verdict. The court noted, "The necessity, extent and character of additional instructions are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court." This decision reinforces the discretion that trial courts have in managing jury instructions and responding to jury inquiries.
The ruling has significant implications for copyright cases moving forward. It clarifies how courts may handle jury instructions related to access and the similarities between creative works. This case serves as a reminder that copyright disputes often hinge on nuanced interpretations of what constitutes substantial similarity and access to a work. The outcome may influence how future plaintiffs approach copyright claims, particularly in the entertainment industry.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Gregorini will seek to appeal this ruling further. The court's decision is final unless a higher court decides to review the case. There may also be related cases pending that could further explore the boundaries of copyright law and the standards for proving access and similarity between works.