Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kagan
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,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by286 opinions
- Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Kisor v. WilkieSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Knick v. Township of ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Shinn v. Martinez RamirezSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
281 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.