Updates to Two Previous Blog Items, Referencing Apple v. Samsung and Mattel v. MGA


Apple v. Samsung (Patents)  (See precious blog item.)

As expected, Samsung filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Apple in Korea, Japan and Germany (not in the U.S.), accusing the world’s largest technology company of violating cellphone transmission patents.  These are not counterclaims; they don’t directly respond to Apple’s allegations. Samsung carefully put some bargaining chips on the table.  It appears here they are following a black bear strategy.  What do you do when confronting a black bear? You try to make yourself appear as big as possible; you don’t flinch or run away as you look for a slow exit; and you never look the bear in the eye.

Mattel v. MGA (Copyright and Trade Secrets)  Here is the previous blog item.

As the WSJ reports this morning, “not only did the jury reject Mattel’s claim to ownership of the Bratz franchise (fashion dolls), but it backed counterclaims” that Mattel stole trade secrets from MGA and awarded MGA nearly $90M in damages.

This was a retrial, demanded last July when the 9th Circuit threw out the original trial court’s verdict for Mattel.

The trade secrets finding is interesting, in that Bratz was able to prove Mattel sent undercover (equipped with fake identification) emissaries to trade shows to spy on Bratz, a practice undoubtedly not unique to Mattel. That trade secrets were available for the taking at a trade show (a "toy fair"), no matter the subterfuge, should be a best practices discussion point for all companies harboring such intellectual property.


Categories