Lindsay Miller

MGT 240, Legal Environment of Bus.

Professor Donley
10, March 2016
Legal Brief

KIMBLE v. MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

Successor to Marvel Enterprises, INC. 2015
No. 13-720
Argued: March 31, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015
FACTS
In 1990 Stephen Kimble acquired a patent on a spider man toy for kids. He shared his
idea with Marvel who then started selling product without any payment given to Kimble. Kimble
then sued Marvel for committing patent infringement. They came to an agreement where Marvel
purchased Kimbles patent for about 500,000 dollars, along with a 3% royalty on any of Marvels
future sales on the toy. When this agreement was met, the parties had it set to where the royalties
would not have an end date, that they would continue to be paid as long as the toy sold. But
Marvel found out about the case Brulotte v. Thys co., and wanted this to apply to their deal with
Kimble, but Kimble did not agree.

ISSUE
Should the Brulotte precedent, stating that a patent holder can not continue to receive any
royalties after the patent expires be overruled?

DECISION
No, Brulotte will not be over turned.

REASON
The court came to the conclusion based off stare decisis. Brulotte held that the patent
holder can not continue to receive any royalties from any sales after the patent has expired.
Kimble argued that the precedent should be overruled but there was not enough evidence
provided by Kimble showing the reason on to why this t should be overruled.

CONCLUSION
Justice Kagan believed this was a policy matter that was better left up to congress to
decide. Congress has the ability to overrule the decision of the Brulotte precedent. Since they
have not done so Kagan saw that there was no reason to rule against Brulotte. So ultimately if
Kimble feels strongly enough about this case, he should question it to Congress.