In a blow to the owners of the rights to the film Gone in 60 Seconds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “Eleanor”—the series of Ford Mustangs featured in the film franchise—is not a character entitled to copyright protection. The May 27, 2025, decision in Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. v. Halicki, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12766, F.4th (9th Cir. 2025), clarifies the high bar for a fictional “character” to be independently copyrightable, particularly when that character is an inanimate object.

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, has significantly altered the landscape for establishing specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants operating online. In its April 21, 2025, decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9410, 135 F.4th 739, 2025 WL 1154075 (9th Cir. 2025), the court overruled a key aspect of its prior jurisprudence, making it potentially easier for plaintiffs to sue online businesses in their home forums.

In Woodland v. Hill, No. 23-55418, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11911, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 1417103 (9th Cir. May 16, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a published decision, affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a copyright complaint. In the process, it offered some interesting observations on the access element of copyright infringement in light of evolving technology.

A new case from the Ninth Circuit illustrates that policy arguments cannot overcome the express language of a copyright license, and the difficult in asserting a copyright misuse defense. In Oracle USA, Inc., et al. v. Rimini Street, Inc., et al., 2018 WL 315568, F.3d (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s judgment after a jury trial in favor of Oracle USA, Inc., on its copyright infringement and state law claims against Rimini Street, Inc. and its CEO, Seth Ravin. Id.at *3. The opinion addressed issues of copyright infringement, violations, state law claims (California’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; the Nevada counter-part, the Nevada Computer Crimes Law; and California’s Unfair Competition Law), damages, interest, fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff should have been given leave to amend to state with more specificity the similarities between the two works, and to plead facts that could describe a plausible chain of events linking the King Solomon treatment to defendants.