Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. (576 U.S. 466)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 22, 2015 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 576 U.S. 466 · 135 S. Ct. 2401
- Decided
- June 22, 2015
- Term
- October Term 2014
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Kagan
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, 85 S.Ct. 176, 13 L.Ed.2d 99 (1964), this Court held that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired. The sole question presented here is whether we should overrule Brulotte . Adhering to principles of stare decisis, we decline to do so. Critics of the Brulotte rule must seek relief not from this Court but from Congress. I In 1990, petitioner Stephen Kimble obtained a patent on a toy that allows children (and young-at-heart adults) to role-play as "a spider person" by shooting webs-really, pressurized foam string-"from the palm of [the] hand." U.S. Patent No. 5,072,856, Abstract (filed May 25, 1990). Respondent Marvel Entertainment, LLC (Marvel) makes and markets products featuring Spider-Man, among other comic-book characters. Seeking to sell or license his patent, Kimble met with the president of Marvel's corporate predecessor to discuss his idea for web-slinging fun. Soon afterward, but without remunerating Kimble, that company began marketing the " Web Blaster"-a toy that, like Kimble's patented invention, enables would-be action heroes to mimic Spider-Man through the use of a polyester glove and a canister of foam. Kimble sued Marvel in 1997 alleging, among other things, patent infringement. The parties ultimately settled that…
Excerpt of a 48,976-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.