Case Summary
**Case Summary: Marvel Entertainment LLC v. Stephen Kimble**
**Docket Number:** 7838552
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Date:** Decided June 30, 2014
**Citation:** Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015)
**Background:**
The case revolves around Stephen Kimble, an inventor who developed a toy that allows users to shoot web-like foam string, similar to the superhero Spider-Man. Kimble entered into a licensing agreement with Marvel Entertainment, LLC, granting them the rights to manufacture and sell the toy in exchange for royalties. The licensing agreement included a clause that required Marvel to pay Kimble royalties for the use of the patented toy even after the patent expired.
**Legal Issues:**
The central issue of this case was whether a patent owner could receive royalties for a patent after it has expired, essentially testing the limits of patent rights and royalty agreements. Kimble contended that the agreement's terms were valid and enforceable, while Marvel argued that such arrangements were not permissible under patent law, specifically citing the precedent set in the 1964 Supreme Court case of Brulotte v. Thys Co. This prior decision established that a patent holder could not collect royalties after a patent's expiration.
**Supreme Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower courts, reaffirming the principle established in Brulotte. The Court held that the patent holder's ability to collect royalties must cease when the patent expires, emphasizing that allowing post-expiration royalties would extend the monopoly beyond the life of the patent, which contradicts the patent system's fundamental purpose.
**Conclusion:**
The ruling in Marvel Entertainment LLC v. Stephen Kimble reaffirmed existing legal precedent that prevents patent holders from receiving royalties after their patents expire, thereby influencing future licensing agreements. This decision has important implications for inventors, patent holders, and companies engaged in patent licensing.
This summary provides an overview of the case, highlighting the key facts, legal issues, and the Supreme Court's ruling.