LOS ANGELES, September 10, 2026 – Inside a crowded Second District Court of Appeal courtroom, on an overcast Tuesday morning, the appellate judges struggled to answer a question that could radically change the way Hollywood writes its medical TV shows.
At the center of the dispute? A high-stakes clash over “The Pitt,” an upcoming emergency room drama starring Noah Wyle, and the estate of legendary author Michael Crichton, the mastermind behind the iconic 1990s juggernaut “ER.”
Three justices. One hour of heated oral argument. And everything on the line for creative development across the entertainment industry.
The case matters because copyright claims built on generic tropes—like doctors racing through high-pressure trauma bays—could paralyze project development across major studios.
The controversy erupted after licensing negotiations fell apart. Sherri Crichton, the widow of Michael Crichton, filed suit against John Wells, R. Scott Gemmill, and Warner Bros. Television for breach of contract and copyright infringement. She contends that “The Pitt” isn’t an original concept, but it is rather a “quick and dirty reboot of ER” after the failed negotiations for an official reboot of the popular series due to money and executive credit issues.
Attorneys for the defendants asked the state appellate court to dismiss the case immediately, relying on California’s anti-SLAPP law.
“You can’t copyright an entire genre,” defense lawyer said in the court debate that chaos in the emergency ward of any big city is just another cliché from storytelling going back several decades. Defense says that although “The Pitt” may have some similarities in the form of having star Noah Wyle and executive producers Wells and Gemmill, it is still a unique television series.
The plaintiffs aren’t buying it.
Her legal team argues that pitching an official reboot for months before abruptly pivoting to a “new” hospital show constitutes a breach of contract and bad-faith appropriation of Crichton’s intellectual legacy. They point to striking similarities in tone, character dynamics, and pacing as evidence that the defendants essentially stripped the “ER” label off the engine while keeping the machinery intact.
In reality, it is a complex situation that points out the gray area where Hollywood’s inspiration ends, and plagiarism starts. (And let’s face it; this is not the first occasion that the showrunners have been sued for breaking off talks on the licensed IP to create their own projects, which turned out to be strikingly similar.)
If the court allows the case to proceed to trial, studio attorneys will face far tougher requirements when abandoning licensed IP negotiations. Conversely, dismissing the suit sends a clear message that creative brainstorming within established genres remains protected speech.
Neither side left court on Tuesday claiming victory. The panel took the matter under submission, leaving studio executives, writers, and estate representatives waiting on a written ruling in the coming weeks.
