Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
United States Supreme Court
576 U.S. 446 (2015)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Stephen Kimble (plaintiff) held a patent for a glove with a can of foam string attached to it that allowed its wearers to role-play as if shooting spiderwebs from their hands. Kimble sought to license the invention to Marvel Entertainment, LLC (Marvel) (defendant), but it declined the license. Instead, Marvel began making and selling a similar glove. Kimble sued Marvel for infringement, and the parties settled by agreement containing a provision for royalties on future sales of Marvel’s glove. The agreement did not set an end date for the royalties. Marvel sought and obtained declaratory judgment that it could stop paying royalties upon the expiration of Kimble’s patent, based on the rule prohibiting royalties for post-expiration use established by Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964). Kimble appealed the judgement, arguing that neither party was aware of the Brulotte rule when they entered the agreement and that the rule frustrated their expectations of the bargain. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was not happy to affirm the declaratory judgment, but it did so based on stare decisis. Certiorari was granted to determine whether Brulotte should be overruled.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
Dissent (Alito, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.