Stare Decisis: Dress Codes, Union T-Shirts and the NLRB
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Last week, IP Law360 published an erudite and provocative article by Joseph Matal and his colleagues regarding the Supreme Court's recent subject matter jurisprudence in the context of earlier decisions in the 19th and early...more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. over the issue of assignor estoppel. As a reminder, the case arose in an infringement suit over U.S. Patent Nos. 6,782,183 and...more
James Kisor, a Korean War Veteran, asked the Supreme Court to overrule a longstanding presumption that courts defer to an executive agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulation, a principle known as Auer...more
A divided Supreme Court changed the landscape of administrative law in a recent decision, Kisor v. Wilkie. In Kisor, a slim majority declined to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., Auer v. Robbins and related cases,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, Appeal No. 2017-1842 (March 7, 2018) - In Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement as to...more
Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” 379 U.S. 29, 32 (1964). On June...more
A bedrock principle of U.S. patent law is that the patent grant comprises a quid pro quo. In exchange for a limited term of exclusivity (presently, twenty years from the earliest filing date), the patented invention is placed...more
Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more
Patent holders and accused infringers will need to continue being creative in drafting license agreements after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kimble v. Marvel, No. 13-720, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4067, at *6 (June 22,...more
In 1990, Stephen Kimble obtained a patent for a toy that allowed children and adults to shoot “webs” from the palms of their hands. Kimble met with the president of Marvel Enterprises, Marvel Entertainment’s predecessor, to...more
In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to overturn Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), its 1964 decision holding that it was per se unlawful for a patent owner to...more
Expiration of a patent also terminates the rights to collect royalties on that patent – even if a license contract says otherwise. All businesses are reminded to check the termination date of any patent licensed to the...more
In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, No. 13-720 (U.S. June 22, 2015), the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision with Justice Kagan writing for the majority, upheld its 1964 decision in Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29, reaffirming...more
The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court (USSC) in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC (Kimble) highlights how a lack of knowledge of the law governing the intellectual property that is the subject of a...more
In a decision invalidating reissue patent claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the law-of-the-case doctrine and mandate rule, finding that the reissue claims...more
The Supreme Court’s Kimble Decision Reminds Licensors and Licensees to Evaluate Post-Expiration Royalties with Care - On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court, in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, declined to overrule–on...more
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court upheld the longstanding case law that prohibits a patent owner from receiving royalties after a patent has expired. In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (June 22, 2015) 2015 U.S....more
In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, just handed down June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 50 year old holding of Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964), that patent royalties cannot extend beyond the...more
Background - On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court left intact a 50-year-old rule prohibiting royalties for post-expiration use of a patent. In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, No. 13-720 litigation arose from Marvel’s...more
On June 22, 2015, in a 6-3 decision in Kimble et al. v. Marvel Enterprises, LLC, 576 U.S. __ (2015), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), that it is per se patent...more
More than fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that a patent holder cannot receive royalties for sales made after the patent expires because this arrangement would effectively extend the life of the patent....more
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling citing stare decisis, upheld the half-century rule against royalty payments accruing after expiration of a patent. The Court’s decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC is a...more
On June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court upheld the 50-year-old "Brulotte rule," which prohibits a patent owner from negotiating a license agreement that requires royalties to be paid after the expiration of the...more
In a 6-3 decision in Kimble v. Marvel, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the long-standing rule that bars a licensor from being able to collect royalties for sales after the expiration of the licensed patent—even if...more