The Pitt ER Lawsuit: Why Noah Wyle Argues His Emmy-Winning Show Is Not a Derivative Work
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
The television industry often draws inspiration from its past successes, but when does inspiration cross the line into intellectual property infringement? That complex question lies at the heart of the high-stakes legal battle surrounding the popular HBO Max hospital drama, The Pitt, and its alleged connection to the iconic NBC series, ER.
The suit was launched in August 2024 by Sherri Crichton, the widow of ER creator Michael Crichton. The defendants—Warner Bros. TV (WBTV), actor Noah Wyle (who stars in The Pitt and previously starred in ER), and co-producers R. Scott Gemmill and John Wells—have taken an aggressive stance, filing a new appeal brief arguing that Crichton’s breach of contract lawsuit is "baseless" and should be dismissed before it proceeds to discovery. This battle has moved beyond typical Hollywood disputes, raising critical questions about creative freedom and legal precedent.
The Core of the Contractual Conflict
The foundation of Crichton’s claim rests on a 1994 contract between Michael Crichton and WBTV. Sherri Crichton argues that this contract specifies that any sequels, remakes, spin-offs, or other “derivative works” linked to ER must have the "mutual agreement" of all parties, including Crichton’s estate.
The defendants admit that the origins of The Pitt trace back to failed negotiations for an ER reboot. Noah Wyle, R. Scott Gemmill (who previously worked on ER and serves as The Pitt’s showrunner), and the team were originally attempting to revive the franchise for WBTV. However, negotiations broke down when the Crichton estate allegedly "demanded many millions of dollars" for the new series—rates WBTV deemed "well above industry standard". Once the financial agreement proved impossible, the creative team asserts they "decided to cut ties and create something entirely new".
Showrunner R. Scott Gemmill subsequently wrote a new script that, according to the filing, "did not use or have any connection to ER intellectual property". For his part, Noah Wyle expressed profound disappointment over the litigation, noting earlier this year that the lawsuit "taints the legacy" of ER.
The Defense: Why The Pitt Is "Intentionally Different"
The appeal brief filed by the defense, which offers the first detailed glimpse into their arguments, hinges on the assertion that The Pitt is "original and innovative" and "intentionally different" from ER in all legally protectable aspects. They claim the shows’ only common elements are that they are both medical dramas set in emergency departments, a genre shared by "dozens of other shows," and the involvement of actor Noah Wyle, who plays a different character in The Pitt.
To demonstrate this intentional separation, the defense highlights several key differences:
• Setting: The Pitt takes place in a hospital emergency department in Pittsburgh, contrasting sharply with ER’s setting in Chicago.
• Characters and Themes: The Pitt features a completely new cast of characters. While ER was often described as more “soapy,” focusing on character storylines outside the hospital, The Pitt is "more focused on serious issues plaguing the modern medical field," with characters rarely leaving the emergency department.
• Music Score: ER was a "music-driven show," whereas The Pitt "has no music score".
A Groundbreaking Narrative Structure
Perhaps the most significant difference cited in the appeal is the storytelling device employed by The Pitt. Unlike ER, where a 45-minute episode might cover an entire day-long shift, The Pitt utilizes a unique, real-time approach. Each one-hour episode of The Pitt corresponds to a single hour of a 15-hour emergency department shift, a concept the appeal argues was "never before used in a medical drama".
The Anti-SLAPP Argument and Free Expression
The defendants initially attempted to dismiss the lawsuit using an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that Crichton’s suit was designed to target their right to free speech with frivolous claims. Although the judge initially rejected this, allowing the case to proceed to discovery because it showed "minimal merit," the appeal doubles down on the anti-SLAPP argument.
The filing asserts that the case "provides a quintessential example of why anti-SLAPP exists," claiming Crichton is "misusing the judicial system to try to shut down important speech because [she] couldn’t reach a deal she liked". The legal team argues that allowing the lawsuit to continue would force The Pitt’s creative team to work under the "threat of liability and with the constant distraction and expense of litigation and discovery".
Debating the Definition of "Derivative Work"
The core legal question revolves around the definition of a derivative work under copyright law. The defendants contend that Crichton is attempting to use a narrow contract term to "seize control over any emergency medical drama" the defendants might produce. They emphasize that the established legal definition of a derivative work protects specific elements, such as a "sequence of events" and "the relationships between the major characters," but it does not grant ownership over entire genres or basic plot concepts. They claim The Pitt does not use "a single protected element from ER".
The Ghost of the Failed Reboot
A key point of contention is the material created for the proposed ER reboot that ultimately failed. Crichton’s spokesperson previously stated that she was "shocked" when WBTV broke off negotiations and announced The Pitt, which she called "a carbon copy of the ER reboot that was pitched to her". The proposed reboot treatment included new ideas like episodes transpiring in real-time and plot lines addressing the aftermath of COVID.
The appeal counters that these ideas—the real-time structure and COVID themes—were "new ideas proposed by defendant R. Scott Gemmill in a reboot treatment he created over a decade after ER last aired," not concepts derived from ER itself. Therefore, the defense argues there is "no legal reason why he would not have been free to incorporate those same original ideas into a different project, The Pitt, after the proposed reboot fell through".
Precedent and the Future of the Industry
The defendants warn that if the lawsuit is not dismissed, it will set a "terrible precedent for California’s film and television industry". They argue that this effort seeks to prohibit lifelong artists from exhibiting a "groundbreaking and Emmy-award-winning TV series that speaks directly about some of today’s most pressing issues".
On the opposing side, Crichton’s lawyer maintains that the appeal is simply a "rehash of arguments the trial court has already soundly rejected". The Crichton estate remains confident in its case and "looks forward to presenting its case to a jury".
For now, the appeal places the underlying case on pause. Despite the legal turbulence, the highly resonant, award-winning series The Pitt is moving forward, with Season Two set to premiere in January 2026.
🔖 Key Takeaways
🗝️ The Central Dispute: The The Pitt ER lawsuit centers on whether the HBO Max series The Pitt constitutes a "derivative work" of ER, violating a 1994 contract that requires the Crichton estate’s approval.
🗝️ The Defense Argument: Defendants (WBTV, Noah Wyle, et al.) argue The Pitt is "intentionally different" from ER in setting, characters, plot structure (real-time episodes), tone, and music. They claim the show uses no protected elements from ER.
🗝️ Failed Negotiations Context: The lawsuit follows failed negotiations for an ER reboot. The creative team claims they created The Pitt only after the Crichton estate demanded excessive fees for the reboot.
🗝️ Legal Stakes: The defendants are appealing the rejection of their anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the suit is "baseless" and represents an "outright assault on free expression" that threatens the entire industry by setting a "terrible precedent".
🗝️ Show Status: While the legal proceedings continue, Season Two of The Pitt is scheduled to premiere in January 2026.
🌐 External sources
Comments