Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
106 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1293, 215 Cal. App. 4th 172, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an idea submission case, a defendant may defeat a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract by providing clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence of independent creation, which dispels any inference of use as a matter of law.
Facts:
- In 1976, Anthony Spinner was retained by ABC through a production company to write a pilot script tentatively titled 'L.O.S.T.'
- Spinner submitted a 121-page script in 1977 to ABC executives Cliff Alsberg and Ken Gross, which described U.S. Olympic team plane crash survivors discovering a prehistoric world in the Himalayas.
- In 1977, ABC decided to pass on Spinner's project, citing high costs. Both Alsberg and Gross left ABC by 1979, and Spinner's script was retained by ABC per its records policy.
- In 1991 and 1994, Spinner unsuccessfully pitched a new, futuristic space-themed version of his idea to different ABC executives, who also subsequently left the company.
- Between 2002 and 2004, ABC Chairman Lloyd Braun independently conceived an idea for a show about plane crash survivors on a deserted island, inspired by the movie 'Cast Away' and the reality show 'Survivor'.
- Braun assigned writer Jeffrey Lieber to draft a pilot, but was unsatisfied with the result.
- In January 2004, Braun hired writers J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof, who rapidly developed the concept, characters, and supernatural elements that became the television series 'LOST'.
- The creators of 'LOST' (Braun, Lieber, Abrams, and Lindelof) had no prior knowledge of Spinner, had never seen his 1977 script, and had no contact with the ABC executives who had received it decades earlier.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Spinner sued American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) in a California trial court for breach of an implied-in-fact contract.
- ABC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the creators of 'LOST' had no access to Spinner's work and that the show was independently created.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ABC, holding that ABC had negated Spinner's claims by establishing both a lack of access and independent creation.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for ABC.
- Spinner (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, with ABC as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence of independent creation negate the 'use' element of an implied-in-fact contract claim as a matter of law, thereby entitling the defendant to summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Flier, J.
Yes. A defendant's clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence of independent creation negates the use element of an implied-in-fact contract claim as a matter of law. To prevail on an idea submission claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant actually used their idea. While use can be inferred from access and substantial similarity, this inference can be completely dispelled by a defendant's evidence of independent creation. Here, Spinner’s evidence of access was insufficient, amounting only to a 'bare possibility' based on speculation that his 1977 script resided in a corporate 'script library' and was found by the new creators. In contrast, ABC provided overwhelming, uncontradicted evidence of independent creation, including sworn declarations from every key creator and extensive documentary evidence (e.g., emails, outlines, drafts) that detailed the entire creative process from its inception. This evidence was 'clear, positive, uncontradicted, and of such a nature that it cannot rationally be disbelieved,' thus negating the element of use and making any alleged similarities legally insignificant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the independent creation defense in idea submission and intellectual property law. It establishes that a defendant can prevail on summary judgment, avoiding a costly trial, by meticulously documenting and presenting its independent creative process. The ruling sets a high bar for plaintiffs who rely on circumstantial evidence of 'corporate receipt,' requiring more than mere speculation to create a triable issue of fact when faced with a robust, well-documented showing of independent creation. Consequently, this case encourages large creative companies to maintain detailed records of project development as a powerful shield against infringement claims.
