The astonishing loss for the world’s largest toy maker concluded a case that began in 2004, when MGA’s line of dolls was all the rage among teen and preteen girls. Mattel accused California-based MGA of stealing its designs by hiring a key employee.
Mattel chief executive Robert Eckert sat stone-faced, staring straight ahead as the verdict was read out yesterday in a Santa Ana, California, federal courtroom. He said afterward that he was disappointed by the verdict.
“We remain committed to protecting the intellectual property that is at the heart of business success,” Mr Eckert said in an email.
MGA chief executive Isaac Larian, meanwhile, said the case has been a prolonged battle for his family.
“It very well shows that in America, even huge corporations are not above the law,” Larian said.
A federal jury in 2008 ordered MGA and Larian to pay Mattel $100 million, but a federal appeals court threw out that ruling last year.
MGA then accused Mattel of gaining entry to toy fairs with false credentials to steal trade secrets and concealed evidence of these activities.
The jury found Mattel misappropriated trade secrets from MGA and awarded MGA $88.5m in damages. The jury also decided MGA had interfered with Mattel’s contract with designer Carter Bryant, but awarded only $10,000 in damages to Mattel.
BMO Capital Markets analyst Gerrick Johnson said the failure to settle will go down as a “tremendously bad decision” by Mattel management.
“It means they wasted $400 million or so of shareholder money to get zero return,” Johnson said.
At the height of its popularity, in 2005 and 2006, the urban-chic Bratz dolls — sporting short skirts and flirty, midriff-baring tops — ate into Mattel’s market share and were viewed as a threat to Mattel’s key Barbie franchise.
The craze died down, however.
US District Judge David Carter said the trade secrets damages could be lowered to $88.4 million due to a calculation mistake by the jury.
Wells Fargo analyst Tim Conder said he expected Mattel to appeal, but called the likelihood of a material change “doubtful”.