Kimble v. Marvel (2014)
- Docket
- 13-720
- Decided
- 2014-01-01
Summary
Question: Should the decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co , which held that a patentee cannot continue to receive royalty payments after the patent has expired, be overturned? Conclusion: No. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the precedent established in Brulotte v. Thys Co. —that a patentee cannot receive royalty payments after the patent has expired—should be upheld because there was no sufficient reason to overturn it. Patent law jurisprudence has typically struck down statutes that overly limit free access to formerly patented inventions, and the Brulotte decision was in line with these cases. Because no subsequent legal developments have made the rule announced in that decision obsolete and it has remained workable, there is no reason to overturn the decision. The Court also noted that Congress had ample opportunity to enact a statute that forecloses the Brulotte rule but has not done so. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued that, because the Brulotte rule impermissibly interferes in parties’ abilities to negotiate licensing agreements that reflect the true value of the product, the decision has no precedential weight and should be overturned. The Brulotte rule represents a poor interpretation of the Patent Act and promotes economic inefficiency, so the decision lacks the support of legal standing as well as public policy, and therefore the Court should not uphold it. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the dissent.