Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Superpowered Form of <i>Stare Decisis</i>
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Kimble et al. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, No. 13-720 (June 22, 2015), stood by its decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), reaffirming that post-expiration patent royalty provisions are unlawful per se and therefore unenforceable. The Court reasoned that statutory interpretation precedent invoked a superpowered form of stare decisis that required adherence to Brulotte in this case, absent a superspecial justification to warrant reversal. The economic arguments presented by the plaintiff as possible justifications to overturn Brulotte were unpersuasive and the Court deferred to Congress as the law-shaping authority for reversing precedent in this statutory stare decisis case.
Background
The plaintiff, Stephen Kimble, obtained a patent on a foam string-shooting glove for imitating “a spider person,” and attempted to negotiate a deal with Marvel Entertainment. Marvel subsequently marketed a similar toy and Kimble sued for patent infringement. The parties settled, and Marvel agreed to purchase Kimble's patent for a lump sum plus 3% royalty payments on all future sales. The agreement did not specify a termination date or a decreased royalty rate post-expiration of the patent at issue.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?