GAME INVENTOR�S SPECTACULAR WIN AGAINST MATTEL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) January 12, 2005 -- Today, game inventor Stewart Lamle, who invented FAROOK, the first high-level strategy games since Chess, received notification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of its January 7, 2005 decision in LAMLE v. MATTEL.

The court ruled in Lamle�s favor on issues at the heart of his multi-million dollar Breach of Contract claim against Mattel, Inc., the world�s largest toy and game company.

Decision at: http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1151.pdf

The ruling gives Lamle the right to have a jury trial in federal court. Lamle�s success in getting his chance to go before a jury is remarkable because he is a non-lawyer who represented himself single-handedly for over four years against a team of lawyers from the largest pure litigation law firm in the country�Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges�who failed in their defense of Mattel.

In addition to other claims Lamle alleges: (1) that he and Mattel made a �deal� that included an agreement to manufacture and market Lamle�s MENSA Award-winning game Farook to Europe and other territories such as Australia and New Zealand, with a guarantee of 200,000 sales per year for three years, for Mattel to manufacture Farook for Lamle to distribute in territories including the United States, Japan and the Internet, and for Mattel to apply $25,000 to Lamle�s royalty advance and to pay $150,000 at the time of the signing of a written contract and an additional $200,000 advance by the end of January 1998, against a royalty rate of 15%; (2) that Mattel paid the first $25,000 and later breached its contract.

Lamle contends that Mattel�s actions and promises following their oral agreement prove the existence of a binding contract that superceded the prior �fine print� on the Product Disclosure Form that states: �no obligation is assumed by Mattel, Inc. unless and until a formal written contract is agreed to and entered into�, which Mattel compels inventors to sign before they look at an invention.

Mattel and its lawyers, in essence, contended that the �fine print� of its Product Disclosure Form provides immunity for Mattel to make any oral promise or do any act, including licensing, marketing or harming the product, and not be bound by its words and deeds�as long as Mattel does not sign a written contract�and Mattel did not sign the contract it asked Lamle to draft, memorializing their oral agreement.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court�s summary judgment and disagreed with Mattel citing California law that stated �Parties may abrogate a prior written agreement with a subsequent oral one, if they so mutually intend.� and �the intent to abrogate an earlier written agreement can be inferred from the fact of a later oral agreement.�

In a major victory for inventors, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit�s precedent setting decision put a legal end to this nasty �fine print� scam. ###