I originally wrote about the Bratz copyright case for my overview of 2010 cases blog post, and wanted to post an update as the story develops.
January Update: In the dispute for the intellectual property rights to The Bratz Dolls, conceptualized during an individual’s scope of employment at Mattel but fleshed out and marketed elsewhere (Mattel-competitor MGA), Chief Judge Kozinski (who, in a prior opinion, had advised Mattel to “chill”) remanded this case back to the district court. Kozinski ruled that even though the employee’s contract assigned his ideas to Mattel, the value of the trademarks the company eventually acquired for the entire Bratz line was significantly greater because of MGA’s own development efforts, marketing and investment.
February Update: The trial started Jan. 18 and was expected to last until late spring. But the story continued this week when Mattel asked a federal judge to declare a mistrial because the trial was tainted when MGA’s Isaac Larian testified that Mattel caused the stress that led to his father’s death and destroyed his family, among other things.
What’s at stake: This case has huge implications for employment contracts and intellectual property developed during the scope of employment. The original case opinion focuses on whether corporations can claim ownership of their employee’s ideas, particularly where those ideas are conceived in a private context but during the employment period. This decision will have huge implications for companies whose main assets are ideas – and how they can continue to protect intangible assets in the future.