Jayme Gordon, the man who sued DreamWorks back in 2011 for using his art as he claims he invented the title character behind "Kung Fu Panda" is now facing charges. As per BBC, Gordon is now facing four counts of wire fraud and three counts of perjury. DreamWorks spent a total of $3 million to defend the company from Gordon's claims.

In line with DreamWork's defense, BBC stated that Mr. Gordon allegedly traced some of his drawings from a Lion King coloring book. Though this may be strong evidence against DreamWorks, Gordon dated his drawings from 1993 to 1994, but the coloring book however, was published in 1996. This being said, the dates were inconsistent to his claims.

In addition to BBC's report, FBI agent Harold Shaw stated that:

"Mr Gordon went to great lengths to orchestrate and maintain this fraudulent scheme, trying to take credit for ideas he did not come up with, this case demonstrates the FBI's commitment to root out individuals who try to steal ideas and information from hard-working American companies."

BBC then added that prosecutors stated that Gordon started the scheme after "Kung Fu Panda" hit the theaters back in 2008. If Gordon would be proven guilty of his crimes, he would be facing up to 20 years in jail.

As per The Hollywood Reporter back in 2013, DreamWorks countered Gordon's claims by stating that Gordon was not able to prove that DreamWorks was able to get a hold of his characters, but U.S. District Judge, Joseph Tauro stated that the main issue of the complaint is not on how DreamWorks was able to get a hold of Gordon's art.

Gordon specifically named Jeffrey Katzenberg, stating that he submitted his materials to Katzenberg at DreamWorks back in 1999 as per THR's report.

"Although DreamWorks's policy required prompt return of unsolicited materials with a rejection letter, Gordon received only a letter, which made no mention of his submissions, Katzenberg appears to have provided conflicting testimony regarding his procedures for handling unsolicited submissions, At his initial deposition, he indicated that he sometimes opened submissions and skimmed the opening paragraphs before concluding they were unsolicited materials and forwarding them to the legal department. Later he maintained that he never opened unsolicited submissions at his office but sometimes opened them if they came to his home. All of these discrepancies must be resolved by the trier of fact, and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate."