The billion-dollar damages awarded to Mattel in the Bratz dispute with MGA did not survive a 9th Circuit appeal. Part of that decision turned on the language of the assignment--standard language in employment and independent contractor agreement--and, in particular, on the definition of "inventions" and the application by a court of the age-old rule of "ejusdem generis." Pay attention to drafting.

1. GLOBAL CAPITAL
BLOG
ONE WORD IN CONTRACT BOILERPLATE COULD COST $1 BILLION.
THAT’S A LOT MORE THAN THE LEGAL FEES. AND ALL FOR A DOLL.
Summary: Raise your hand if you have read or drafted an agreement with:
(a) A proprietary rights assignment provision;
(b) A provision with a long list of examples or other “things” assigned; or
(c) Both.
Well, the 9th Circuit just yanked from Mattel its claim for roughly $1,000,000,000
(that’s a billion dollars) in its slugfest with MGA over IP infringement arising from the
Bratz doll. That decision turns in part on scrutinizing the assignment language in an
employment agreement (I admit: The entire opinion did not turn on just one word).
The court looked at the meaning of one word: “inventions.” Then the court looked at
the list of terms that were supposed to explain that word in that provision.
As many lawyers who draft agreements will see, that word—and the list used to explain
that word—is what most lawyers find in their templates for assignment provisions.
Call it boilerplate. In the future, call it a drafting mistake not to pay attention more
closely to that metal. And remember ejusdem generis from your 1st-year contracts
class.
(As of the date of this post the opinion had not been provided a standard citation. You
can find it at http://bit.ly/bdqtrQ.)
There is some “messy” language about the application of California Labor Code
Section 2870. I think that the court got the analysis wrong (but it’s largely in
footnotes). We’ll comment in passing on this point. Also, the court applied its own
(and widely disliked) Apple v. Microsoft “extrinsic/intrinsic” test for infringement.
We’ll save that for another lawyer to address.
By the way, this post is not about the case itself but about its lessons for lawyers and
their clients about agreements. And one lesson is: Make sure that the language really,
really covers what you want covered.
Introduction
OK, so a Mattel employee quits Mattel and joins another company and there makes a doll
that becomes the “Bratz” toy line that whacks Barbie in the marketplace. (MGA
GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW GROUP PC
G L O B A L C A P I T A L S T R AT E G I C G R O U P

2. GLOBALCAPITAL/Page 2
eventually acquires the rights.) Mattel sues MGA in federal district court, claiming,
among other things, that the employee had assigned all his rights by operation of the
proprietary rights assignment provision in his employment agreement. The district court
agrees and finds for Mattel (and on several other bases not relevant to this post). MGA
appeals and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacates the judgment (for all that money) and
remands (sends it back) to the district court. Technically, the Court chastised the lower
court for failing to take into account more evidence on critical points and to make
findings of fact on these matters. So, if it goes to back to that court (rather than gets
resolved through settlement), then we can expect a more robust discussion of these
matters.
It’s Just a Word. Welllll . . .. Can You Say “Ejusdem Generis” (and pronounce it
properly)?
Reviewing the agreement on a de novo basis (never a good sign for the lower court), the
9th Circuit quotes some of the relevant language from that assignment provision:
I agree to communicate to the Company as promptly and fully as practicable all
inventions (as defined below) conceived or reduced to practice by me (alone or
jointly by others) at any time during my employment by the Company. I hereby
assign to the Company . . . all my right, title and interest in such inventions, and
all my right, title and interest in any patents, copyrights, patent applications or
copyright applications based thereon. (Emphasis added.) At 10532-3.
The opinion then quotes the contract definition of inventions:
[T]he term ‘inventions’ includes, but is not limited to, all discoveries,
improvements, processes, developments, designs, know-how, data computer
programs and formulae, whether patentable or unpatentable.” At 10533.
(We regularly see a definition that doubles and even triples that list.)
The Court looks at whether or not the word “inventions” includes “ideas.” And without
even mentioning the age-old phrase, ejusdem generis, the Court at least quotes one
application of the hoary rule: “[C]ourts avoid constructions that would make “a
particular item in a series . . . markedly dissimilar to other items on the same list[.]” At
10533. Just before that quote from a previous case, the Court notes that “ideas” differ
quite a bit from the list in the agreement. (Note to readers: Make the comparison
yourself).
Oops. I’ll bet the lawyer who wrote that agreement is squirming; I’ll double up on the
bet that Mattel and MGA lawyers are now digging through their files on all employment
agreements. Uh-oh. (And I’ll triple that bet by arguing that most other lawyers who draft
those types of agreements—and clients who use those agreements—have not yet started
to pay attention. But wait: I’m not a betting man.)
Yikes! It gets worse. The Court later takes note that Mattel actually signed agreements
with other employees (and probably independent contractors) by which inventions and
ideas are assigned. Uh-oh. I think some lawyers may be looking to create an ABA
Lawyer Protection Program. Or perhaps look for a career in another industry.

3. GLOBALCAPITAL/Page 3
So What?
The Royal We empathize with the Mattel lawyers. That language is in so many
agreements in the technology world that it has become boilerplate not closely scrutinized.
Many lawyers assume that those at the client with technical expertise have vetted the
applicability of that language. Budget and time pressures from the client often force a
lawyer into a kind of “issue triage,” relying upon the wisdom presumably intrinsic in the
language having been applied without challenge in thousands of previous uses of that
provision.
None of this makes it right. Every lawyer should know that ejusdem generis compels one
to use clear drafting to specify precisely what is to be covered. One simple way of
explaining one application of that rule is that the more items are added to the list then the
narrower the applicability of that list. Don’t quote me, though. Say what you mean in
the language. If the employee is not going to be involved in, say, computer programming
or databases then why would one include “data computer programs and formulae?”
And every client should check this language to make sure that it is clear in what it
actually covers. Is it ideas and inventions? Now, We are not convinced that ideas can
indeed be assigned (it depends upon the jurisdiction). But that’s a discussion a client
should have with its lawyer. And that’s a discussion for which the client should happily
pay the legal fees. Is it worth the risk of losing a billion dollars in damages to save a few
thousand dollars?
Wait, There’s More.
We are truly baffled that the Court did not address in more detail the applicability of
California Labor Code Section 2870. Perhaps it was briefed and perhaps the lower court
did not find it necessary to address the issue. Quoting again from the 9th Circuit opinion
shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her
own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities or trade
secret information except for those inventions that either (1) relate at the time of
conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s
business . . . or (2) result from any work performed by the employee for the
employer.’ ” Footnote 5 at 10538 (Emphasis added in blog post)
As far as we can tell, the exceptions to that rule should protect Mattel. Mattel made
Barbie. The employee was working on Barbie. Uh-huh.
Whatever the outcome of the case, the reasoning of the opinion should get lawyers who
draft to sharpen their pencils. And re-read their notes from 1st-year contracts classes.
Our thanks to the legal eagles at Law.com whose Corporate Counsel
newsletter alerted us to another development in this case.
James C. Roberts III is the Managing Partner of Global Capital Law
Group (www.globalcaplaw.com) and CEO of the strategic consulting firm, Global
Capital Strategic Group (www.globalcapstrat.com). He heads the international,
mergers & acquisitions and transactional practices and the industry practices
concentrating on digital, media, mobile and cleantech technologies. He is currently

4. GLOBALCAPITAL/Page 4
involved in opening the Milan office. Mr. Roberts speaks English and French and, with
any luck, Italian in the distant future. He received his JD from the University of Chicago
Law School, his MA from Stanford University and his BS from the University of
California—Berkeley. You can reach him at jcrext@globalcaplaw.com.
The GLOBAL CAPITAL firms counsel domestic and international clients on strategic and
legal issues inherent in the deployment of intellectual & financial capital—a merger or
acquisition, foreign market expansion, a strategic alliance, a digital content license, a
mobile deal, foreign and domestic labor and employment policies, starting a new entity
or raising capital. Clients range from global Fortune 100 corporations such as
Deutsche Bank and News Corporation and its subsidiaries, MySpace.com and Fox
Interactive Media, to start-ups. Industries represented include digital media, Internet,
software, medical and biotechnology, nanotechnology, consulting firms, environmental
technology, advertising, museums and other cultural institutions and manufacturing.
www.globalcaplaw.com www.globalcapstrat.com
GLOBAL CAPITAL LAW GROUP PC
CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NORTH CAROLINA | MILAN (ASSOCIATED)
GLOBAL CAPITAL STRATEGIC GROUP
CALIFORNIA | SHANGHAI | MILAN