LONDON (AP) — A judge ruled Friday that mega-selling author Dan Brown did not steal ideas for The Da Vinci Code from a nonfiction work, ending the suspense about the case with an ultimately unsurprising decision.

High Court judge Peter Smith rejected a copyright-infringement claim by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, who claimed that Brown’s blockbuster “appropriated the architecture” of their 1982 book. In the United States, the book is titled, Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

The ruling will allow a film based on the book and starring Tom Hanks to open as scheduled on May 19.
Smith said the plaintiffs had based their copying claim on a “selective number of facts and ideas artificially taken out of [the book] for the purpose of the litigation.”

“It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (Da Vinci Code) has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright,” Smith said in his 71-page statement.

Brown said he was pleased by the ruling “not only from a personal standpoint but also as a novelist.”

“Today’s verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit. I’m still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all,” Brown said in a statement, adding that he was “eager to get back to writing.”

Both books explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives. Most historians scoff at such ideas, but Brown’s mix of murder, mysticism, code-breaking and art history has won millions of fans.

The Da Vinci Code has sold more than 40 million copies including 12 million hardcovers in the United States since it was released in March 2003.

It recently came out in paperback in the United States, and quickly sold more than 500,000 copies, an astonishing pace for a paperback release.

An initial print run of 5 million has already been raised to 6 million.

Random House said the case should have never made it to court.

Leigh and Baigent may have to pay costs that legal experts estimate will top $1.75 million.

Brown’s victory was widely anticipated by lawyers because copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself.

“There is no copyright in ideas,” said Mark Stephens, a lawyer specializing in media law and copyright issues. “It’s just about how words are expressed.”