Skip to main content

Patent holder cannot charge royalties after expiry of patent term

Indulging in an interesting discussion as to whether the decision given in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964) that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired is still a good law, the Court with a majority of 6:3 held that the rule of Stare decisis requires to adhere to the law laid in Brulotte and overturning Brulotte would thus upset expectations, most so when long-dormant licenses for long-expired patents spring back to life. Giving reasons, Kagan J., who delivered the opinion of the Court, explained the reason for not overturning the ruling is that Brulotte’s statutory and doctrinal underpinnings have not eroded over time and the core feature of the patent laws on which the case relied remains just the same. The Court also observed that overruling a case always requires “special justification”, over and above the belief “that the precedent was wrongly decided” which cannot be established with Brulotte.

In the instant case respondent Marvel Entertainment’s corporate predecessor agreed to purchase petitioner Stephen Kimble’s patent for a Spider-Man toy in exchange for a lump sum plus a 3% royalty on future sales. The agreement set no end date for royalties. As the patent neared the end of its statutory 20-year term, Marvel discovered Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29, sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court confirming that it could stop paying Kimble royalties.

Considering the contention rose by the petitioner that Brulotte suppresses technological innovation and harms the national economy by preventing parties from reaching agreements to commercialize patents, the Court stated that Brulotte leaves parties free to enter alternative arrangements that may suffice to accomplish parties’ payment deferral and risk-spreading goals. Hence, the Court declined Kimble’s invitation to overrule Brulotte. [Kimble v. Marvel, decided on 22.06.2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/07/06/brulotte-still-a-good-law-declared.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more