This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement

Francesca Gregorini v. Apple Inc.; M. Night Shyamalan; Blinding Edge Pictures Inc.; Uncle George Productions; Escape Artists LLC; Dolphin Black Productions; Tony Basgallop; Ashwin Rajan; Jason Blumenthal; Todd Black; Steve Tisch; and Does 1-10, inclusive

Published: Jul. 17, 2020 | Result Date: May 28, 2020 | Filing Date: Jan. 15, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-00406-JFW-JC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

John F. Walter

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David A. Erikson
(Erikson Law Group)

Antoinette S. Waller
(Erikson Law Group)

Stephen R. Patterson
(Erikson Law Group)


Defendant

Nicolas A. Jampol
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)

Diana Palacios
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)

Cydney S. Freeman
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)

Camila Pedraza
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)


Facts

Francesca Gregorini sued various production companies, including Apple, Inc., following the release of episodes 1 through 3 of the show "Servant."

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants used plaintiff's premise and expression from the film "Emanuel" in defendant's series, "Servant." Plaintiff further contended that defendants used plaintiff's premise and expression in pilot episodes of defendants' series. Plaintiff also contended that defendants' plot in "Servant" was remarkably similar to plaintiff's plot in violation of plaintiff's copyright. Plaintiff also further contended that defendants infringed on the sequence of events, theme, characters, setting and mood in "Emmanuel" in "Servant."

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and contended that defendants' work diverges from plaintiff's works. Defendants also contended that "Servant" was artistically distinct from "Emmanuel." Defendants further contended that the mood and theme of "Servant" were, at most, scattered with "random similarities" to "Emmanuel" that did not constitute copyright infringement.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.


#135067

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390