The second trial in the long-running Mattel and MGA’s Bratz Doll Dispute began yesterday with opening statements in Federal Court (Santa Ana, CA).
This time around, the trial is expected to take about four months. As before, Mattel is suing MGA for copyright infringement damages, as well as over trade-secret theft. In its defense, MGA is accusing its rival of unfair competition under state statutes and of stealing its own trade secrets.
A prior veredict for $100 million in damages was overturned on appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Download the opinion here). As Bloomberg has reported, “In 2008, a federal jury in Riverside, California, agreed with Mattel that doll designer Carter Bryant made most of the initial sketches for the Bratz dolls while he worked for El Segundo, California-based Mattel.” See our prior post on the top lessons from the appeal and our white paper on its consequences.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruling amounts to a finding that Mattel did not automatically own Bryant’s design under the terms of his employment agreement, and to a reconsideration of damages on the basis that ownership of the Bratz dolls intellectual property had not been adequately apportioned between what Mattel may have owned, and what MGA had developed.
Unlike the original trial, at issue will be the specific question of the ownership of such intangibles as the names “Bratz” and “Jade,” one of the first-generation dolls, and whether the employment agreement properly entitles Mattel to the inventions that the designer conceived of during his off-hours on nights and weekends.
We shall follow this “new” case with interest; Bryant v. Mattel, 04-09049, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Santa Ana).
UPDATE: The trial ended in a surprise verdict, read our post about it here!