Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
135 S. Ct. 2401, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4067, 192 L. Ed. 2d 463 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of stare decisis requires the Supreme Court to adhere to its prior statutory interpretations, even if critics believe the precedent was wrongly decided economically, especially when Congress has had multiple opportunities to amend the statute but has not.
Facts:
- In 1990, Stephen Kimble obtained a patent for a toy that allowed users to shoot pressurized foam string from their hand, mimicking Spider-Man.
- Marvel Entertainment, LLC's corporate predecessor began marketing a similar toy called the 'Web Blaster' without compensating Kimble.
- Kimble sued Marvel for patent infringement in 1997.
- The parties settled, with Marvel agreeing to purchase Kimble's patent for a lump sum and a 3% royalty on future sales of the Web Blaster and similar products, with no specified end date for these royalties.
- As Kimble's patent term neared its 20-year expiration in 2010, Marvel discovered the Supreme Court's decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that post-expiration royalties are unlawful.
Procedural Posture:
- Marvel sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court in Arizona, asking the court to confirm it could stop paying Kimble royalties after the patent's expiration.
- The district court granted Marvel's request, holding that Brulotte made the royalty provision unenforceable after the Kimble patent expired.
- Kimble, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, stating that while the Brulotte rule was "counterintuitive and its rationale is arguably unconvincing," it was bound by Supreme Court precedent.
- Kimble, as petitioner, then sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the principle of stare decisis require the Supreme Court to uphold its precedent from Brulotte v. Thys Co., which prohibits patent holders from collecting royalties for sales made after their patent's expiration, despite arguments that Brulotte was based on an economic error and stifles innovation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
Yes, the principle of stare decisis requires the Court to adhere to Brulotte, as critics of the rule must seek relief from Congress, not the Court. The Court emphasized that stare decisis is a "foundation stone of the rule of law" and carries enhanced force when interpreting a statute, as Congress is free to correct any perceived mistake. Brulotte's holding is considered part of the statutory scheme of patent law. The Court noted that Congress has had multiple opportunities over half a century to amend the patent laws and specifically address Brulotte, and has even spurned bills that would have replaced Brulotte's per se rule, indicating congressional acquiescence. Furthermore, Brulotte implicates property and contract rights, where stare decisis is "at its acme" because parties rely on such precedents. The Court found no "special justification" to overrule Brulotte, as its doctrinal underpinnings have not eroded (Section 154 of the patent laws and related precedents like Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co. remain good law) and the rule has proven workable and simple to apply, unlike the proposed antitrust "rule of reason" alternative. The Court acknowledged Kimble's economic arguments against Brulotte's premise but stated that even if Brulotte relied on an economic misjudgment, Congress is the proper body to fix it, as patent laws do not give courts the same law-shaping authority as the Sherman Act. Moreover, Brulotte did not primarily turn on an antitrust analysis of competitive effects, but rather on the categorical principle that all patent-related benefits must end when the patent term expires, ensuring inventions enter the public domain freely. Arguments about Brulotte suppressing innovation are also best addressed to Congress, as the Court cannot assess such empirical claims and alternatives exist for structuring agreements.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No, stare decisis does not require upholding Brulotte because it represents judicial overreach, not a genuine interpretation of the Patent Act, and is based on debunked economic theory that stifles innovation and disrupts contractual expectations. Justice Alito argued that the Patent Act says "nothing whatsoever about post-expiration royalties" and Brulotte's holding was a "bald act of policymaking" based on a "policy that is difficult to defend" and "soundly refuted" by economic analysis. He contended that post-expiration royalties do not extend a patent monopoly but merely represent a contractual right, often allowing parties to spread licensing fees over a longer period, which can be pro-competitive and encourage innovation. He criticized the majority's assertion that parties can "find ways around Brulotte" as creating economic inefficiency and highlighted how Brulotte directly upset the expectations of Kimble and Marvel. Justice Alito further argued that stare decisis should not give "super-duper protection" to decisions that do not truly interpret a statute or are based on judge-made rules or flawed policy concerns, especially when they have demonstrably disruptive effects. He equated Brulotte's reasoning to an antitrust decision, arguing it should be reexamined with the same flexibility applied to Sherman Act precedents. Finally, he stated that congressional inaction should not be overemphasized as an endorsement of a faulty judicial ruling, given the difficulty of passing legislation.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of stare decisis, particularly in cases involving statutory interpretation where Congress has had ample opportunity to revise the underlying law. It clarifies that even if a precedent is widely criticized on economic grounds or viewed as wrongly decided, the Supreme Court is generally unwilling to overturn it without a "special justification" beyond the belief that it was incorrect. The ruling reinforces the idea that patent policy, including the balance between incentivizing innovation and ensuring public domain access, is primarily the purview of Congress, not the judiciary. This case suggests a high bar for overturning long-standing statutory precedents, emphasizing workability and doctrinal erosion as key factors over perceived economic misjudgments or policy critiques.
