Has Mattel finally lost the battle over Bratz?

The El Segundo-based toymaker says it's evaluating its options after a federal judge turned down its request for a new trial. From its statement:

We are disappointed with the recent rulings on the post-trial motions. Mattel strongly believes that the outcome at the trial level is not supported by the evidence or the law. Additionally, we remain committed to finding a reasonable resolution to the litigation, and are focused on our primary goal - to make and sell great toys.

The battle with Van Nuys-based MGA over which company should control the Bratz franchise has been going on for seven years, and the only thing that Mattel has gotten for its troubles is a very large legal bill. To recap:

--2004: Mattel files suit against MGA, alleging that Bratz designer Carter Bryant was employed at Mattel when he created the Bratz dolls.

--July 17, 2008: Federal jury finds that Bryant created the Bratz dolls while he was working for Mattel, and that MGA was liable for converting Mattel property for its own use.

--August 26, 2008: Jury awards Mattel $100 million in damages.

--December 3, 2008: U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson issues permanent injunction against MGA, requiring the company to remove all Bratz products from store shelves.

--December 10, 2009: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit grants MGA a stay of the injunction.

--July 22, 2010: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that MGA owns the Bratz franchise, determining that Larson had abused his discretion with his ruling for Mattel.

--January 18, 2011: Retrial begins.

--April 21, 2011: Federal jury returns verdict supporting MGA.

That brings us up to yesterday's ruling, in which U.S. District Court Judge David Carter ordered Mattel to pay MGA $310 million in punitive damages and legal fees. A few things worth noting. One is that the Bratz brand is not generating nearly the sales that it once did. Two is that Bratz has never been considered a game-changer - even if Mattel were given custody of the doll. Three is that appealing the most recent ruling is probably a long-shot (not to mention time-consuming and expensive). Mattel is certainly not known for giving up these sorts of cases, but perhaps on this one it's time.