In Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 2004), the Court recognized that the analysis of similarity under an implied-in-fact contract claim is different from the analysis of a copyright claim, even where the plaintiff has submitted a full copyright-protected script. 383 F.3d at 967-68. In that case, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant on the copyright claim because we agreed with the district court that the defendants' movie was not substantially similar to the plaintiff's screenplay. Id. But despite this conclusion, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the implied-in-fact contract claim and remanded to the district court. Id.