Kung Fu Panda Lawsuit

• July 25, 2011: After three days of deliberation, a L.A. downtown jury returned a verdict for the defense, stating that (1) an implied-in-fact contract did exist between Terry Dunn and Dreamworks--based on Dunn's testimony that he pitched his Zen-Bear project to DWA executive Lance Young on Nov. 20, 2001 followed by telco-documented phone conversations with Young until April 12, 2002; but that (2) Dreamworks did not use Dunn's ideas in its Kung Fu Panda Film. Dunn commented that critical rulings during the trial were made in favor of the defense by Judge O'Donnell (such as the twice rejection of Dunn's Special Jury Instructions), and that these rulings appear to be reversable on appeal. Dunn's final comment was that the verdict is only "Justice delayed--not denied."

• During direct testimony in his case-in-chief on Monday and Tuesday, July 11 and 12th, Terry Dunn disclosed the 1992 creation date of his original concept of a Kung-Fu-fighting panda bear, and entered into evidence 34 Copyrights and 3 trademarks for his Kung-Fu Panda named "Zen-Bear", and six (6) Writers Guild registrations dated 1996, 1999, 2002, and 2004 for treatments, Concepts for an animated TV series, and a screenplay. Dunn testified that the essential story elements of his "Zen-Bear®" project were stolen by Dreamworks SKG executives Lance Young and Michael Lachance shortly following his face-to-face pitch to Young on November 20, 2011 and subsequent discussions with Young and Lachance ending on April 15, 2002. Dreamworks Animation's defense is "independent creation"--i.e., that it conceived of and developed Kung Fu Panda internally and did not use any of the elements of Dunn's alleged pitch to Young. DWA called as defense witnesses: Michael Lachance (the alleged creator of the Kung Fu Panda concept), Chris Kuser, Jeff Katzenberg, Lance Young, Melissa Cobb, Raphe Beck, Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris. Dunn called as a corroborating witness Sylvia Wallis.

Closing argument was given by Dunn’s counsel Theresa Macellaro on Tuesday afternoon July 19. Defendant’s counsel Jonathan Zavin started his closing argument Tuesday after Macellaro and completed it Wednesday morning using a Power Point presentation. Macellaro delivered Plaintiff’s rebuttal argument to the jury following Zavin—but without the benefit of a Power Point projector because of a mysterious equipment malfunction. Jury began its deliberations at noon on July 20.

Thursday, July 21 – During deliberations, the jury requested a play-back of two audiotaped "pitch" meetings between writing team of Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris (who received "Story By" credit on the film) and DWA on April 10 and 22, 2002. It had heard tape of a 3rd meeting (May 9, 2002) during Defendants' case in chief. On Thursday, the jury asked the Court this question: "If an idea expressed by Dunn is used by Dreamworks Animation and then abandoned, is it still 'use'?" Judge Joanne O'Donnell gave the jury the answer, "No." When this instruction was later conveyed to Adam Rodman of the Writers Guild of America West, it was strongly criticized as contrary to the position that the WGA consistently takes on the exact same issue when called to serve as an expert witness (--the argument being that when a studio utilizes submitter's story elements C, D, and J in going from "Point A" to "Point Z", even though story elements C, D, and J do not appear in the final movie, "Point Z", those elements have still been misappropriated and "used"). When the jury's question arose, Dunn's attorney Bonnie Chermak filed a Brief Regarding Special Jury Instructions requesting that the Court submit to the jury Plaintiff's jury instructions #7 and #8 that it had been deleted from the jury instructions before closing arguments were made. Judge O'Donnell heard arguments from Chermak and DWA's attorney Jonathan Zavin, and then denied the motion, thus refusing a second time to give to the jury appropriate, on-point California caselaw quantitatively defining how much "use" of misappropriated Intellectual Property constitutes a breach of implied contract.

On Friday, July 22, the jury reviewed the KF Panda film a second time, then requested a read-back of Dunn's trial testimony about the contents of his pitch to Young and subsequent conversations with both Young and Lachance.

CASE BACKGROUND: On June 1, 2010, writer-producer, Kung-fu master and Tai Chi expert Terence Dunn filed suit against Dreamworks Studios, LLC and Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. in Los Angeles Superior Court for breach of implied contract over DWA's release of the film Kung-fu Panda on June 8, 2008 without compensating him. Dunn claimed that in 2001 and 2002 he had pitched to Dreamworks SKG executives Lance Young and Michael Lachance his story about "a spiritually-marked Kung-Fu-fighting panda bear" named Zen-Bear who is trained by five animal friends who are Kung-Fu masters--a tiger, leopard, snake, crane and dragon--and fulfills his destiny as a martial hero/spiritual avatar (as foretold by a young tortoise sage) by saving the inhabitants of Plum Flower Village from a horde of Kung-fu-fighting animal attackers–a pack of rats, a clan of yellow monkeys, and a pack of hyenas--who are all led by the arch-villain Praying Mantis. In his Complaint, Dunn claims that "Kung fu Panda" released in June 2008 is substantially similar in all material respects to the ideas that he had presented to Dreamworks executives Lance Young and Michael Lachance from 2001 to 2002. In August 2010, in answer to Dreamworks' written interrogatories, Dunn, based on the advice of his attorney Glen Kulik, asserted minimum damages of $20,000,000 based on their knowledge of two Kung Fu Panda films as of that time. Dunn and his attorney learned on December 10, 2010 that Dreamworks has announced five sequels to the first KF Panda film for a total of six films--one more than the defendants' Shrek franchise. Dunn's claim for damages at trial will be expounded by his forensic economist.

• The Defendants' answer to Dunn's Complaint filed on July 15, 2010 by Dreamworks' defense counsel David Grossman of the Loeb & Loeb law firm stated a blanket denial of his allegations: "Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the Complaint and each cause of action thereof, and generally and specifically deny that Plaintiff has sustained any injury, damages or loss whatsoever, or at all, by reason of any conduct action, error, or omission on the part of Defendants."

• On December 2, 2010, Judge JoAnne O'Donnell denied Dreamworks' Motion to Bifurcate Dunn's discovery into liability and damages. The motion attempted to prevent Dunn from discovering Dreamworks' financial gains from the Kung Fu Panda film and merchandising franchise until Dreamworks' liability had been proven in the case. In denying the Motion, Judge McDonnell admonished Dreamworks' counsel for making "poor arguments" and sustained Dunn's counsel's objection to a Declaration submitted by Dreamworks attorney David Grossman. This ruling means that the defendants must disclose to Dunn their revenues and profits derived from the Kung Fu Panda franchise.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS WEBSITE: Terence Dunn sued Dreamworks Animation for breach of implied-in-fact contract, claiming that the Defendant pushed him aside after months of discussing his "Zen-Bear" proposal (after Dunn pitched it to Dreamworks' Senior V.P. of Production and Creative Affairs on November 20, 2001) and made "Kung-Fu Panda" based on his original concept of a spiritually-marked Kung-Fu Fighting panda bear and numerous story elements that include the panda hero being mentored by five animal kung-fu masters, who then saves the inhabitants of a peaceful village from marauding animal antagonists. By allegedly stealing Dunn's concept and numerous story elements to make "Kung Fu Panda", Dreamworks not only breached an implied-in-fact contract between them and deprived him of the reasonable value of his ideas, but also pre-empted his long-developed and artfully-designed Zen-Bear animation franchise, which he had begun working on in 1992--two years before Dreamworks SKG was founded--that he intended to be a vehicle for teaching the best of Chinese culture, art, martial art, philosophy, and spiritualism to the West. The Timeline Exhibit presented on this website establishes Dunn's 1992 creation of Zen-Bear, the earliest kung-fu-fighting panda bear concept and the first one reduced to tangible form.

THE FOLLOWING ARE MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DUNN'S "ZEN-BEAR®" FRANCHISE THAT DREAMWORKS EXECUTIVES LANCE YOUNG AND MICHAEL LACHANCE WERE ALLEGEDLY INFORMED ABOUT UP THROUGH 2002 (WHEN COMMUNICATIONS WITH DUNN TERMINATED), WHEN THEY AND DREAMWORKS' TOP MANAGEMENT ALLEGEDLY DECIDED TO EXPLOIT DUNN'S CONCEPT AND STORY ELEMENTS BY DEVELOPING THEIR OWN KUNG-FU PANDA PROJECT WITHOUT COMPENSATING HIM:

www.kungfupandalawsuit.com

July 25, 2011: Jury returned verdict for the defense. Plaintiff Dunn will appeal.

KUNG-FU PANDA LAWSUIT

TERENCE DUNN VS. DREAMWORKS STUDIOS & DREAMWORKS ANIMATION (BC 438833)

CLICK HERE TO SEE DOCUMENTED TIME-LINE OF DUNN'S ZEN-BEAR CREATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH DREAMWORKS REGARDING HIS ORIGINAL KUNG-FU PANDA CONCEPT.

www.kungfupandalawsuit.com

July 25, 2011: Jury returned verdict for the defense. Plaintiff Dunn will appeal.

KUNG-FU PANDA LAWSUIT

TERENCE DUNN VS. DREAMWORKS STUDIOS & DREAMWORKS ANIMATION (BC 438833)

CLICK HERE TO SEE DOCUMENTEDTIME-LINE OF DUNN'S ZEN-BEAR CREATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH DREAMWORKS REGARDING HIS ORIGINAL KUNG-FU PANDA CONCEPT.

CLICK HERE TO SEE DOCUMENTED TIME-LINE OF DUNN'S ZEN-BEAR CREATION AND INTERACTIONS WITH DREAMWORKS REGARDING HIS ORIGINAL KUNG-FU PANDA CONCEPT.