A federal jury in Riverside, Calif., just returned a $100 million verdict for Mattel, according to an early Reuters report, about $1.9 billion less than the company asked for. Quinn Emanuel’s John Quinn, who repped Mattel, asked the jury for $2 billion for stealing the conceptual drawings of the Bratz doll — at least $1 billion in Bratz profit and interest, and another nearly $800 million for the complicity of MGA’s CEO, Isaac Larian.
I say "interesting" because I doubt the $2 billion was pulled out of thin air. If you win liability, and get a real shot at serious damages, you try very hard not to overshoot and have the jury turn on you.
Maybe Quinn didn’t follow the "don’t kill the defendant" advice in asking for punitive damages, i.e. that juries will rarely award enough to destroy the defendant’s business.
I wonder what drove that figure. Compromise on liability? Respect for the underdog, even where underhanded?
From what I know the infringement wasn’t a complete and total slam dunk — Bratz appeared to have substantially improved the design on its own. Maybe that was part of it.
We’ll learn more over the next few days.