## Facts

- Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp. owned copyrights in the *Star Wars* motion picture, and Lucasfilm, Ltd. owned copyrights in a 1976 *Star Wars* book and later joined as a co-plaintiff.
- Universal Studios, Inc. (a subsidiary of MCA, Inc.) produced *Battlestar: Galactica*, released as a motion picture and television series televised by ABC.
- Fox sued in federal district court alleging that *Battlestar: Galactica* infringed the *Star Wars* film and book copyrights; plaintiffs also asserted unfair competition and Lanham Act claims.
- For purposes of defendants’ motion, defendants did not dispute the validity of plaintiffs’ copyrights or their access to the *Star Wars* works.
- Plaintiffs identified numerous alleged similarities in plot, characters, relationships, settings, and overall “concept and feel,” arguing these reflected copying of protectable expression rather than merely shared science-fiction ideas and stock elements.
- The district court, after reviewing the works (including audiovisual materials), granted defendants partial summary judgment on the copyright claims, concluding no substantial similarity as a matter of law.
- Plaintiffs stipulated that the ruling would apply to later television episodes; the district court entered a Rule 54(b) final partial judgment, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, given valid copyrights and admitted access, the district court properly granted summary judgment by finding no triable issue that *Battlestar: Galactica* was substantially similar to *Star Wars* in protectable expression.
2. Whether the alleged similarities could be resolved as unprotectable ideas, scènes à faire, or stock genre elements as a matter of law, rather than by a factfinder.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of partial summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that the works raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants copied only unprotectable ideas or copied protectable expression.
- The court concluded the substantial-similarity question was close enough that it should be resolved at trial, not on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review of summary judgment is de novo under the same Rule 56 standard.
- Copyright infringement requires a valid copyright and copying of original constituent elements; copying may be shown circumstantially through access plus substantial similarity.
- Courts must separate unprotectable ideas, stock elements, and scènes à faire from protectable expression; analytic dissection may be used to assess objective similarities, but factfinding is generally required where the “total concept and feel” comparison is reasonably debatable.
- The selection and arrangement or combination of otherwise common elements may constitute protectable expression, making categorical dismissal as “mere ideas” inappropriate when reasonable jurors could differ.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs presented evidence of multiple similarities and the idea–expression boundary was reasonably disputable after reviewing the works, the Ninth Circuit held that substantial similarity could not be rejected as a matter of law and required a trial.


Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1983)