A federal appeals court has shut the door on a filmmaker's six-year legal fight claiming that Apple TV+'s horror series Servant stole its premise from her independent film. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a jury verdict that cleared Apple Inc. and director M. Night Shyamalan of copyright infringement, closing out a case that began with a lawsuit in 2020 and included one prior trip back from the appellate court.
A Years-Long Dispute Over a Grieving Mother and a Lifelike Doll
The ruling, reported Thursday, came in a lawsuit filed by writer-director Francesca Gregorini, who alleged that Servant copied her film The Truth About Emanuel, according to Reuters. Both works center on a mother grieving her baby's death who forms an attachment to a lifelike doll, per the outlet's reporting. Servant, which ran from 2018 to 2023, was created by Tony Basgallop and executive produced by Shyamalan for Apple TV+.
Gregorini originally sued Apple and Shyamalan for copyright infringement in 2020, court records reviewed via CourtListener show. The complaint, filed January 15, 2020, named Apple Inc. and M. Night Shyamalan among the defendants and carried a $400 filing fee, according to the same docket. The Ninth Circuit had already intervened once in the case, reviving Gregorini's lawsuit in 2022 after finding a federal judge had dismissed it prematurely, per Reuters.
Jury Sided With Apple and Shyamalan Last Year
Once the case returned to trial, a California jury determined that Servant's makers lacked access to Gregorini's film before making the show, Reuters reported. The jury reached that unanimous verdict on January 24, 2025, following a trial that began on January 13, 2025, according to the opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California published via Justia. The district court entered final judgment for Apple, Shyamalan and the other defendants on February 20, 2025, the opinion states.
Gregorini then challenged the jury verdict before the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the trial outcome.
How Ninth Circuit Copyright Law Treats Similar Claims
The case turned on legal standards the Ninth Circuit applies broadly to copyright disputes over creative works. Courts in the circuit require plaintiffs to prove substantial similarity in protectable expression through both an extrinsic and an intrinsic test, according to IP Update. The intrinsic test asks whether an ordinary reasonable observer would perceive substantial similarity in expression without the aid of expert testimony, per that same analysis.
That framework has shaped other recent Ninth Circuit outcomes. In Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, the appeals court declined to disturb a jury's implicit finding that the challenged works were not intrinsically similar, according to the Ninth Circuit opinion published via Justia. In a separate case, Yonay v. Paramount Pictures, the court affirmed summary judgment for Paramount after concluding that generalized themes, factual material and abstract similarities did not amount to protectable expression, IP Update reported.
Attorneys and Studio Stay Quiet on the Outcome
Gregorini was represented by attorney Patrick Arenz of Robins Kaplan, while Apple was represented by Nicolas Jampol of Davis Wright Tremaine, according to Reuters. Neither Gregorini's attorney nor Apple spokespeople responded to requests for comment on the decision, the outlet reported. The underlying dispute pitted a smaller independent film against one of Apple TV+'s signature original series, with Shyamalan serving as an executive producer on Servant.
