A federal appeals court has affirmed a jury’s previous ruling favoring Apple and filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan in a copyright lawsuit concerning Apple TV Plus’s series “Servant.” The Ninth Circuit dismissed challenges to the verdict and held that the original jury instructions were legally sufficient. This stemmed from claims that procedural flaws undermined the fairness of the trial—arguments the appeals court rejected.
Background of the Dispute
The legal battle began when Francesca Gregorini filed suit in January 2020, alleging that “Servant” borrowed heavily from her 2013 film “The Truth About Emanuel.” In both works, the plots center on a mother enmeshed in grief who treats a lifelike doll as a real baby, and hires a young caregiver—key similarities that Gregorini argued indicated unlawful copying. However, a jury unanimously sided with Apple, Shyamalan, and other defendants in January 2025, finding no infringement.
Originally, the lawsuit had been dismissed by a lower court, but was reinstated on appeal in 2022. The case then proceeded to trial, culminating in the jury’s decisive verdict in Apple and Shyamalan’s favor. The core issues on appeal zeroed in on whether the jury had been properly instructed and whether unanswered jury questions introduced ambiguity into the verdict.
What the Appeals Court Held
In a decision handed down October 22, 2026, the Ninth Circuit evaluated two main arguments from Gregorini. The first concern was that the jury instructions did not adequately explain how to assess whether the creators could have encountered Gregorini’s film before making “Servant.” The second issue was an unanswered question posed by jurors during deliberations, asking for further guidance.
The appellate court found that the jury instructions at trial were sufficient to allow jurors to determine whether access to Gregorini’s film was plausible. Moreover, despite the jury’s request for clarification, the court ruled that the judge was permitted to accept a unanimous verdict without providing further instruction—largely because the instructions already covered the necessary legal standards.
No changes were made to the defenses raised during the trial, and no new facts were introduced on appeal. The focus remained entirely on procedural legality rather than the substance of the creative work. All judgments from the original trial—including the final judgement issued in January 2025—remain intact and enforceable.
Significance for Creators and Copyright Law
This ruling has important implications for how copyright cases involving alleged copying proceed, especially in the streaming and television sectors. It underscores that similarities in story premises do not alone prove infringement, and that access (whether creators could have encountered earlier works) can be a crucial hurdle for plaintiffs.
Additionally, the decision confirms that appellate courts may uphold verdicts even when jury questions go unanswered, so long as the original instructions adequately cover legal thresholds. For defendants, this reaffirms procedural protections during trial, particularly over how juries are guided on complex issues such as access and similarity.
The cast of “Servant” includes Lauren Ambrose, Toby Kebbell, Nell Tiger Free, and Rupert Grint, with Shyamalan acting as executive producer. The series has drawn attention not just for its style and storytelling, but now also for becoming the subject of this high-stakes legal precedent.
Analytically, this decision highlights a shift in how courts are safeguarding creative expression while balancing the rights of original creators. Plaintiffs like Gregorini must meet more than superficial material similarities; proving access and navigating the technicalities of trial procedure play a growing role in whether these claims succeed or fail. Going forward, creators pursuing copyright actions will need to plan carefully around both the substance of alleged copying and the architecture of trial instruction.
