AEB & Associates Design Group, Inc. v. Tonka Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a confidentiality agreement that set forth the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the submission of toy concepts presented by plaintiffs agent to defendant precluded plaintiffs implied-in-fact contract claim
• noting that “even original ideas combine elements that are themselves not novel,” but recognizing that “novelty cannot be found where the idea consists of nothing more than a variation on a basic theme”
• upholding the enforceability of a confidentiality agreement including liability disclaimers that provided that its terms “shall be in perpetuity unless modified or terminated as specified herein”
• “[N]ovelty cannot be found where the idea consists of nothing more than a variation on a basic theme.”
• no recovery where party “arrived on its own initiative or by wholly independent means at a concept similar to that devised by the party seeking recovery”
• idea consisting of “nothing more than a variation on a basic theme” cannot be novel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).