Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC

Spiderman_Patent_Drawing

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC is a significant United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of patent royalties and their duration. The case was decided on June 22, 2015, and it reaffirmed the precedent set by the earlier case of Brulotte v. Thys Co..

Background[edit | edit source]

The dispute in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC originated from an invention by Stephen Kimble, who created a toy that allowed users to shoot foam string from their hands, mimicking the abilities of the popular Marvel Comics character Spider-Man. Kimble was granted a patent for his invention in 1991. Subsequently, he approached Marvel Entertainment to discuss the potential for licensing his invention.

In 1997, Kimble and Marvel reached a settlement agreement, which included a provision for Marvel to pay Kimble royalties based on the sales of the toy. However, the agreement did not specify an end date for these royalty payments.

Legal Issue[edit | edit source]

The central legal issue in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC was whether the royalty payments could extend beyond the expiration of the patent. This question was governed by the precedent set in Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that a patent holder cannot continue to receive royalties for a patent after it has expired.

Supreme Court Decision[edit | edit source]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marvel Entertainment, upholding the Brulotte rule. The Court's opinion, delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized the importance of adhering to precedent (stare decisis) and noted that any change to the rule should come from Congress, not the judiciary.

The decision reaffirmed that once a patent expires, the public is free to use the invention without paying royalties, thus promoting the dissemination of knowledge and innovation.

Impact[edit | edit source]

The ruling in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC has significant implications for patent law and licensing agreements. It underscores the importance of clearly defining the terms of royalty payments in licensing agreements and highlights the limitations imposed by patent expiration.