Burten v. Milton Bradley Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
763 F.2d 461 (1985)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Allen Coleman and Roger Burten (inventors) (plaintiffs) came up with a concept for a board game. The inventors hoped to sell the concept to the Milton Bradley Company (defendant), a toys and games manufacturer. Before accepting the inventors’ proposal for consideration, Milton Bradley made the inventors sign a disclosure agreement stating that (1) the inventors voluntarily submitted their proposal, (2) no relationship between the inventors and Milton Bradley was implied by Milton Bradley’s willingness to review the proposal, (3) Milton Bradley assumed no obligation to accept the proposal, and (4) the inventors retained their rights under federal patent laws. Milton Bradley did not buy the inventors’ concept. Some time later, however, Milton Bradley released its own remarkably similar game. The inventors sued Milton Bradley in federal court, under Massachusetts tort law, for trade-secret misappropriation. The jury returned its verdict for the inventors. The judge, however, accepted Milton Bradley’s argument that there was no issue of fact to submit to the jury regarding the parties’ understanding of the disclosure agreement. The judge entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Milton Bradley. The inventors appealed to the First Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coffin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.