Enriching Life Through Innovative Ideas SM



On June 22, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the inventor of a Spiderman toy who claimed that a 50-year-old precedent barred him from collecting the royalties he was entitled to. The court declared collection of post-patent royalty as unlawful and upheld the precedent set by Brulotte vs. Thys Co. (1964). The inventor of the Spiderman toy, Stephen Kimble, attempted to overturn the decision that has prevented numerous inventors from collecting royalties after their patent had expired.

History of the Case

In 1991, Kimble obtained a patent for his invention of a toy that shoots foam from the palm of the hand. In 1997, Kimble sued Marvel Entertainment for patent infringement and claimed that the company illegally used his idea to create the Web Blaster toy. After years of legal dispute, Marvel settled the case in by obtaining the patent for $500,000.00 and giving Kimble a 3% royalty on product sales made after December 31, 2000.

Later in 2008, Kimble filed a suit for breach of settlement because he disagreed with Marvel over the amount of royalty he would receive. Marvel countered the suit, claiming that the royalty payments to the inventor would stop when the patent expired in 2010 even though the agreement did not have an end date. Marvel sought a declaratory judgment confirming that the company would not need to pay royalties after Kimble’s patent term. The court approved Marvel’s judgment due to the precedent set by Brulotte v Thys Co.

Kimble attempted to appeal the decision by trying to overturn the ruling of Brulotte v Thys Co. He argued that inability to collect royalties beyond the patent term hurt could suppress innovation and harm the economy.

The Precedent in Question

In the case of Brulotte v Thys Co., Brulotte purchased a crop-harvesting machine from Thys Co. and accepted a licensing agreement that required him to pay royalties to the company based on the amount of crops harvested. Brulotte stopped paying royalties to Thys Co. when he realized that the patent had expired. The parties disagreed over the inventor’s collection of royalties and took the battle all the way to the Supreme Court. Brulotte argued that Thys Co. misused the patent by extending the licensing agreement past the expiration date of the patent.

The Court ruled that royalty provisions in patent licensing agreements are not enforceable beyond a patent’s expiration date. As a patent holder, Thys Co. has the exclusive right to make, sell, and use the invention, but those rights become public property after the 17-year expiration date.

The Decision

The Supreme Court defended the previous decision and ruled that Kimble did not provide “special justification” or enough evidence of economic harm to overturn the precedent. After the date of expiration on a patent, the rights to the invention become public property. Therefore, contracts that restrict public access to formerly patented inventions are not enforceable by the law. Furthermore, Brulotte v Thys Co. prevents royalties on expired patents, but it does not prevent other methods that achieve similar results such as royalty payments tied to non-patented rights.

Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion of the ruling to uphold the precedent. Kagan expressed that the ruling was done reluctantly and stated in the opinion, “overruling a precedent is never a small matter and respecting stare decisis means sticking to some wrong decisions.” The Supreme Court generally uses the principle of “stare decisis” when deciding on the overruling of a precedent. This means that the Supreme Court will favor the precedent because it promotes stability of the law.

Collecting post-patent royalty is unlawful and conflicts with laws regarding expiration dates. The court held that a patent holder is unable to charge royalties for the use of his or her inventions after its patent term has ended.

FindLaw Network

What Our Clients Say

Starting a new business can be a bit scary. Aside from worries of failure, there’s also the hassle of making sure all legal paperwork are properly filed. I reached out to Mr. Wang (Tommy) because of his excellent reviews and reputation and I am so glad I did. He was thorough and meticulous in answering all of my concerns and took time to find out special laws and policies regarding the kind of business I am starting. I could focus on the daily practical side of starting my new office without worry because I felt Tommy was reliable and took my case seriously. My business is opened and it’s all been a smooth start because of Tommy’s help. I have plans to start another business venture in the next few years and I already know I’ll be coming back to Wang IP Law.

The Shindig W.

I came to Tommy for help reviewing a licensing agreement I had secured with a well-known manufacturer. Tommy made sure I understood all the details in the contract and he negotiated with the company to improve my side of the deal. I mentioned to Tommy at my first consultation that we were looking to expand throughout the US and were investing a lot of money to make a big entrance into the market. I did not think I would have my store open so soon but Tommy also has connections with the local area and realtors to help me secure the location for my first store in the Los Angeles area. Tommy works a lot with the local businesses and he understands how to transition from the Asian market to US market. Within 8 months my store was open for business and fully operating. I must recommend Tommy to any business owners looking for help with contracts and improving their side of the deal. Tommy has the knowledge and experience to make sure there is a smooth process to open for business here, and make sure that your company is set up for success.


I think Tommy and his team by far considered the best people to work with in my 16 business years. Beside quick responses to all my inquiries, they also done things right and providing very professional solutions. I’m highly recommending Tommy and his firm to all business owners.

Calvin C.

I have been working on my Utility Patent for almost 4 years. I have hired and fired two very reputable IP firms because with all their expertise and reputation for being some of the top firms in IP Law, I felt a lack of connection and care in my product, time and financial investment. Then I found Tommy and his team. Tommy does not waste time. He and his team are professional and extremely thorough. After 4 years, I finally found a legal team that I felt spent the time to really understand the components of my utility patent. Tommy also very mindful of cost and how and where my money would be better spent. I really feel I am in great hands with Tommy and his team. They have been patient with my revisions. And most importantly, they made me feel that they fully understood the importance this patent is to me. It has been a great and comforting pleasure working with Tommy.


Read All