Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


More On

Court throws out $80 million verdict in Bratz case

9th Circuit sides with Mattel in the latest in this ongoing legal battle

It’s been almost a decade in the making: the trade secrets fight between two toymakers—MGA Entertainment and Mattel Inc.—and some big-headed dolls called Bratz. And yesterday, the drama was drawn out even longer when the 9th Circuit threw out an $80 million verdict MGA had won against Mattel.

The battle dates back to 2004 when Mattel sued MGA, accusing the company of stealing its trade secrets for Bratz dolls after former Mattel employee and Barbie designer Carter Bryant, who created Bratz, joined MGA. In 2008, a jury awarded Mattel $100 million, but a federal appeals court overturned that ruling in 2010. MGA won the retrial in August 2011 when the judge awarded it $310 million, attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with the long-running litigation. Mattel appealed that ruling and the 9th Circuit sided with the company yesterday.

While the court’s ruling also removed an additional $85 million in enhanced damages, the circuit kept in place the more than $100 million in attorneys’ fees MGA had won. The court said in its decision yesterday that MGA shouldn’t have been allowed to present its trade secrets arguments against Mattel to the jury because the claims weren’t closely related to Mattel’s allegations.

"That both Mattel and MGA claimed they stole each other's trade secrets isn't enough to render MGA's counterclaim compulsory," the 9th Circuit wrote in its decision. "While this may not be the last word on the subject, perhaps Mattel and MGA can take a lesson from their target demographic: Play nice."

Knowing this case, it’s not the last word.

For more recent trade secret stories on InsideCounsel, see:

Steve Jobs threatened Palm with patent litigation to stop it poaching Apple employees

Microsoft, Motorola Mobility seek to keep trade secrets private after trial

Jury orders Best Buy to pay $27 million to software startup TechForward

E-discovery: 5 things every company should consider when developing a BYOD policy

Winning the final fight against international trade secret thieves



Cathleen Flahardy

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.