Magnavox Co. v. Mattel, Inc.

216 U.S.P.Q. 28 (1982)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Magnavox Co. v. Mattel, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
216 U.S.P.Q. 28 (1982)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Sanders & Associates (Sanders) (plaintiff) owned the ’507 patent, which described an apparatus for the display of a hit symbol—a lighted dot—across a screen and the ability of users to manipulate hitting symbols to intercept and alter the dot’s path. The patent claims detailed that the dot would change direction when the hit symbol and a player’s hitting symbol occupied the same space on the screen. The ’507 patent described the use of analog circuits in a television receiver to produce electric signals for gameplay. Magnavox Co. (plaintiff) was the exclusive licensee of the ’507 patent and created a series of television ball-and-paddle games based on the ’507 patent’s content. Connecting the device to the television, players controlled symbols on the screen edges to intercept and reverse a ball’s travel path. The video-game industry eventually introduced microprocessors, allowing for the creation of game consoles that could read data from game cartridges, permitting users to play a variety of games on the television. Using microprocessor technology, Mattel, Inc. (defendant) produced the Master Component console, which allowed users to play multiple sports cartridge games on a television. The console and games were collectively called the Mattel Intellivision. The Intellivision’s games each involved a form of symbol on each side of a screen, such as racquets for tennis, and users could move the player symbols to swing and intercept a ball icon. Due to technological advancements, Intellivision games used processors and digital circuitry to create the game imagery instead of analog circuits. However, the components of the Intellivision’s circuitry were directly analogous to the analog circuitry described in the ’507 patent. Patents from before the ’507 patent, including military targeting programs and various computer systems, contained similarities to the ’507 patent but did not anticipate or show all the ’507 patent’s claim elements or describe anything close to a television game with hitting and hit symbols. Magnavox sued Mattel for patent infringement.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Leighton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership