Core77

Toy designers Design Innovation wins case

By Niti Bhan - February 10, 2006

in Design Business

a jury has found that toy company Fisher-Price misappropriated a concept developed by Design Innovation for use in the Fisher-Price Rescue Heroes line of products. The verdict was reached in the case of Design Innovation v. Fisher-Price, Inc. on February 6, 2006 following a three week trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The jury awarded Design Innovation damages of $1.7 million and also found Fisher-Price guilty of unfair competition, having acted in bad faith in its misappropriation of the toy concept. "The verdict represents a resounding victory for the toy inventor community." Read full story here. (it's a press release by the law firm, I couldn't find any news articles yet)

o

Favorite This
Q
2

Comment

Comments

Bruce Popek

18 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

FP signed an Option Agreement for a 3 month period to review and develop the concept. Upon expiration of the option period, FP was to either enter into a licensing agreement, purchase the concept out right or return the concept to the inventor. FP and their designers were unable to show any evidence that the concept was not novel or that prior art existed or that they had ever thought of the idea before seeing and reviewing the concept submission. The concept was submitted to FP three times over a period of 3 years, and seen by staff designers, VPs of design and senior management. Confidentiality is standard custom and practice in the industry, unless agreed to by both parties. Design Innovation did not sign away or relinquish this understanding. This was not a contract dispute but a misapropriation of a valuable and unique idea.

!Report as spam
Jim Smith

18 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Does anyone understand this? No patents or any other form of protection is mentioned. No doubt FP's actions are shady, I just don't understand how they are illegal.

I thought this was why some companies will not look at concepts for which a patent has not been filed.

Perhaps there was some kind of contract that gave FP the exclusive rights to the concept for a set amount of time and since they rejected it they had no rights to it? Anyone with IP/licensing knowledge out there?
!Report as spam