Nadel v. Play-by-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc.
208 F.3d 368 (2nd Cir. 2000) (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a contract-based claim for the uncompensated use of an idea only requires the idea to be novel to the buyer. In contrast, a property-based misappropriation claim requires the idea to be novel and original in absolute terms.
Facts:
- Craig P. Nadel, a toy inventor, developed a prototype for a plush toy that sat upright, emitted sound, and spun on a flat surface using an 'eccentric mechanism.'
- The toy industry has a standard custom of treating idea submissions as confidential and compensating the inventor if the company uses the disclosed idea.
- In October 1996, Nadel presented his prototype to Neil Wasserman, an executive at Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc., allegedly with an agreement based on industry custom that Nadel would be compensated if the idea was used.
- Nadel sent his prototype to Wasserman, who denied receiving it, although his secretary testified that the toy remained in Wasserman's office for several months.
- Play-By-Play kept the prototype until February 1997, after it had introduced its 'Tornado Taz' product at the New York Toy Fair.
- The 'Tornado Taz' toy possessed the same general characteristics as Nadel’s prototype: an upright, sound-emitting, spinning plush toy.
- Play-By-Play claimed it had independently developed the concept prior to Nadel's submission and that Nadel's idea was not novel to the toy industry.
Procedural Posture:
- Craig P. Nadel filed a lawsuit against Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract, quasi contract, and unfair competition.
- Play-By-Play filed counterclaims against Nadel for tortious interference with business relations, Lanham Act violations, and unfair competition.
- The district court granted Play-By-Play's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Nadel's complaint on the grounds that his idea lacked general novelty.
- The district court also granted Nadel's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Play-By-Play's counterclaims.
- Nadel, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Play-By-Play, as appellee, cross-appealed the dismissal of its counterclaims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New York law, must an idea be novel and original in absolute terms to serve as consideration for a contract-based claim for its uncompensated use?
Opinions:
Majority - Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
No, an idea does not need to be novel in absolute terms to serve as consideration for a contract-based claim; novelty to the buyer is sufficient. The court clarified a critical distinction between the novelty required for different legal theories in idea-submission cases. For contract-based claims (express or implied), an idea has value to a particular buyer if it is new to them, and this value is sufficient consideration to form a binding contract. This is consistent with traditional contract principles where parties are free to bargain for something they find valuable, regardless of its objective novelty. However, for property-based misappropriation claims, an idea must be truly original and novel to the world, because the law does not protect the 'theft' of ideas that are already in the public domain and free for all to use. Because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Nadel's idea was novel to Play-By-Play, summary judgment on his contract claims was improper.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a dual-track approach for analyzing idea submission cases under New York law, clarifying the precedent set in Apfel v. Prudential-Bache Securities. It significantly aids inventors by establishing a lower, more subjective 'novelty to the buyer' standard for contract claims, allowing them to enforce agreements even if their ideas are not revolutionary. This contrasts with the much higher 'general novelty' standard for misappropriation claims, which protects the free use of public domain information. The ruling guides lower courts to carefully distinguish between these claims and prevents the premature dismissal of valid contract disputes on summary judgment.
Unlock the full brief for Nadel v. Play-by-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc.