Marvel Wins Supreme Court Dispute Over Spider-Man Toy

Marvel Wins Supreme Court Case Over

The Supreme Court refused to overrule precedent and sided with Marvel Entertainment by concluding that a patentee cannot continue to receive royalties for a patent after it expires.

The court ruled 6-3 in Kimble vs. Marvel Entertainment.

The case involved Stephen Kimble, who had a patent on a toy that allowed kids to shoot webs from pressurized foam string. After Marvel released a web blaster, Kimble sued in 1997. As part of a settlement, Marvel acquired his patent in exchange for a lump sum of about $500,000 and 3% of all future sales.

The settlement agreement, however, set no end date for the royalties. Marvel then discovered court precedent on patents, Brulotte vs. Thys Co., and sought a declaratory judgment that it did not have to pay Kimble any future royalties once his 20-year patent expired in 2010.

In the opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court concluded that Kimble’s effort to overturn Brulotte vs. Thys Co. was a policy matter better left to Congress.

Among other things, Kimble argued that his inability to collect royalties beyond the patent term, even when his agreement with Marvel did not specify an end date, would hurt innovation.

But in her majority opinion, Kagan wrote that “neither Kimble nor his amici have offered any empirical evidence connecting Brulotte to decreased innovation; they essentially ask us to take their word for the problem. And the United States, which acts as both a licensor and a licensee of patented inventions while also implementing patent policy, vigorously disputes that Brulotte has caused any ‘significant real-world economic harm.’ Truth be told, if forced to decide that issue, we would not know where or how to start.”

Kagan also cited a “web of precedents” and quoted the “Spider-Man” comics.

“What we can decide, we can undecide,” she wrote. “But stare decisis teaches that we should exercise that authority sparingly. Cf. S. Lee and S. Ditko, Amazing Fantasy No. 15: “SpiderMan,” p. 13 (1962) (‘[I]n this world, with great power there must also come — great responsibility’).”

“Patents endow their holders with certain superpowers, but only for a limited time,” she wrote.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, as did Chief Justice John Roberts.

Marvel Entertainment said in a statement, “Marvel is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which upholds the court’s legal precedent from half-a-century ago.”



Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 2

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. SanFranGirl says:

    How does this ruling make sense?
    If Marvel purchased the patent back in the 90s by this logic he wasn’t entitled to ANY royalties after the point of purchase because Marvel was the patent holder…

    • Brad says:

      it looks to me that they agreed to pay him 3% on future sales so it was not bought out-right it said we will give you the 500k + 3% of sales. And it appears that Marvel doesn’t want to continue to give him the 3%.

More Biz News from Variety