The plaintiffs brought an action for copyright infringement, alleging the defendants copied fictional events from their historical non-fiction books.
Both parties moved for summary judgment.
The Court admitted the plaintiffs' expert report despite the expert being the father of plaintiffs' counsel, finding it met admissibility thresholds.
However, the Court held that the plaintiffs could not claim copyright protection over elements their predecessor had presented as factual history.
Evaluating the works holistically, the Court found no substantial copying of protectable original expression.
The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.
