A long-running copyright dispute involving Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” and Marvin Gaye’s classic “Let’s Get It On” has reached a procedural turning point which illustrates the value of threshold challenges as a defensive litigation strategy. The case demonstrates how early motion practice can be used to defuse what might otherwise become a costly, expert-driven proceeding, and it serves as a reminder to defense counsel to evaluate potentially dispositive issues before a matter advances to full discovery.

One of the Sheeran copyright actions first went to trial in 2023.[i] In that matter, the federal jury found that “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe on “Let’s Get It On.”[ii] A related lawsuit brought by Structured Asset Sales (SAS), a separate rights holder with an economic interest in “Let’s Get it On,” also sought to establish copyright infringement against Sheeran, but the United States District Court for the Southern District found there was none. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the result.[iii] Those matters were litigated under the original 1973 copyright registration and its accompanying sheet-music deposit copy, which defined the scope of the protectable work under the governing legal framework.[iv]

Despite those outcomes, SAS sought to continue the dispute on a different legal theory by relying on a separate copyright registration obtained in 2020.[v] SAS moved to amend its suit to assert infringement claims tied to that later registration, which used the sound recording instead of the sheet music as the deposit copy. By invoking the 2020 filing, SAS attempted to expand the scope of allegedly protected elements to include sonic and performance-based characteristics that were not part of the original registration, effectively reframing the case into a broader and more technically complex musical comparison and pushing the litigation back toward expert-heavy discovery.

On December 9, 2025, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York ruled Sheeran may challenge the validity of the 2020 registration before SAS is permitted to amend its complaint to rely on it.[vi] By posturing the case in this way, the court shifts the dispute away from an expansive merits inquiry and toward a focused threshold examination of standing and authority. The emphasis moves from musical similarity to administrative correctness and legal entitlement to assert the claim. If Sheeran’s team establishes the 2020 registration is invalid or unauthorized, the case may be resolved without reaching a jury and without the parties incurring the burden of extensive discovery or expert analysis.

Takeaway

For insurers and corporate defendants, identifying and litigating threshold defects early in a case is especially significant. Doing so prevents a plaintiff from leveraging questionable documentation or tenuous standing to create settlement pressure through escalating defense costs.

This ruling underscores the central role of early motion practice aimed at structural weaknesses standing. Courts are increasingly receptive to resolving such gatekeeping issues as a matter of judicial economy and fairness, particularly where a plaintiff seeks to repackage claims that have already faced adverse outcomes. By forcing resolution of threshold issues regarding a plaintiff’s asserted rights and documentary footing at the outset, defendants can limit exposure, control litigation costs, and potentially stop a case from going to jury.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

More by this author

Let’s Not Get It On: Threshold Challenges in the Ed Sheeran Copyright Case Blind Spots and Deep Pockets: Apportionment After the $45 Million Zemo Verdict No Sweat: Strategic Defense Clears the Air in Ad Lawsuit Civil Procedure Updates to Know in New York for 2025 Staying Above Water: Mitigating Liability Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in New Jersey Kicked Off the Team: College Football Doctor Wins Big in Wrongful Termination Case

Sources

[i]     Blake Brittain & Brendan Pierson, Ed Sheeran did not violate ‘Let’s Get It On’ copyright, US jury finds, Reuters (May 4, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-jury-sides-with-ed-sheeran-lets-get-it-on-copyright-trial-2023-05-04/.

[ii]     KATHRYN TOWNSEND GRIFFIN, et al. v. EDWARD CHRISTOPHER SHEERAN, et al. 17 Civ. 5221 (LLS) SPECIAL VERDICT FORM, Courthouse News Service (May 4, 2023), https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/sheeran-special-verdict-form.pdf.

[iii]    Structured Asset Sales, LLC v Sheeran, 120 F4th 1066 [2d Cir 2024], cert denied, 145 S Ct 2792, 222 L Ed 2d 1086 [2025].

[iv]    Ben Sisario, Ed Sheeran Prevails in Copyright Appeal Over ‘Let’s Get It On’, The New York Times (Nov. 1, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/arts/music/ed-sheeran-lets-get-it-on-copyright-appeal.html?smid=nytcore-android-share.

[v]     Elliot Weld, Ed Sheeran Can Challenge Copyright On ‘Let’s Get It On’, Law360 (Dec. 9, 2025, 6:03 PM EST), https://www.law360.com/articles/2420060/ed-sheeran-can-challenge-copyright-on-let-s-get-it-on-.

[vi]    Id.