I reviewed and downloaded some of the briefs, filings and orders in the MTH v. Lionel lawsuit which just resulted in the huge verdict in favor of MTH. These are some of my observations (which probably are based on incomplete info, since I haven’t seen everything - particularly the evidence at trial, and was not there).
-
This case was very hard fought and bitter. Lots of motions, briefs, charges, countercharges. Two or three experts for each side. More than 40 depositions. Thousands of pages of documents produced.
-
MTH tried to get a preliminary injunction against Lionel producing many products back in 2000 when it commenced the lawsuit, but was denied by the court because of insufficiently compelling evidence and “a concern for imposing the court’s will upon the marketplace and the very competitive thin market”.
-
Lionel tried mightily to get summary judgment in its favor (winning before the case got to jury trial), but the judge denied the motion in its entirety. Importantly, MTH, as to be expected from a plaintiff, painted its claim with a very broad and vague brush. Lionel tried to show that most of the Lionel product lines that MTH was complaining were the result of the misappropriated trade secrets were not actually produced by MTH (EM-1, Mountain, scale J3a Super Hudson, Junior Hudson), were orginally made for Lionel well before the alleged misappropriation (Mikado, Shay, S-2 Turbine and die-cast caboose), were in the market as MTH products more than a year before Lionel introduced them (virtually everything but the Class A and scale T-1), or were designed or tooled by manufacturers other than Korea Brass (0-8-0, Baby Berk, Camelback, aux. water tenders).
-
The one-year in the market argument relates to MTH’s assertion in the lawsuit that it takes one year to design and build a loco from scratch. Thus, Lionel argued that if the loco was in the market for at least a year, Lionel could have used that product in designing its own (and wo