United States: Rebuffing Critics, Supreme Court Re-Affirms Ban On Post-Expiration Patent Royalties

Last Updated: June 30 2015
Article by Sean P. Gates and Jeny M. Maier

Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co.,1 the U.S. Supreme Court held that the collection of royalties after a patent's expiration constitutes per se patent misuse. Brulotte has been widely criticized as economically irrational. In particular, critics have contended that Brulotte was based on a faulty view of the competitive effects of post-expiration royalties and that the Court, as it has in several antitrust cases, should abandon the per se rule in favor of a "rule of reason" approach.

In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., the critics finally had their day in court; the question presented was whether the Court should overrule Brulotte. While acknowledging that a "broad scholarly consensus" supports the "view of the competitive effects of post-expiration royalties," the Court nevertheless refused to overrule Brulotte, adhering to principles of stare decisis.2 The Court was not convinced by claims that Brulotte posed a significant barrier to efficient licensing or that the case has discouraged technological innovation. Moreover, the majority emphasized that Brulotte involved an interpretation of the Patent Act, which requires stricter adherence to stare decisis than in antitrust cases.3 Brulotte may therefore have implications for other patent cases in which antitrust and competition policies concerns are at issue.

I. BRULOTTE'S CRITICS

In Brulotte, the Court reasoned that obtaining royalties for the use of patents post-expiration would expand the scope of the patentee's rights: "to use that leverage to project those royalty payments beyond the life of the patent is analogous to an effort to enlarge the monopoly of the patent by tieing the sale or use of the patented article to the purchase or use of unpatented ones."4 The Court therefore held that "a patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se."5

This reasoning has been the subject of criticism from legal scholars, economists, and the lower courts.6 Some commentators argue that "post-expiration royalties merely amortize the price of using patented technology"7and "thus do not represent an extension in time of the patent monopoly."8 Economists contend that "allocative efficiency considerations should permit a licensor and licensee to agree to longer royalty terms."9 The Seventh Circuit has questioned whether obtaining post-expiration royalties "really 'extends' the patent,"10 and reasoned that "paying royalties after the patent expires does not extend the duration of the patent either technically or practically, because . . . if the licensee agrees to continue paying royalties after the patent expires the royalty rate will be lower."11 Such licenses are therefore nothing more than "a risk-shifting credit arrangement between patentee and licensee."12

II. THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

The Ninth Circuit's reluctant decision in Kimble—holding that it was bound to follow Brulotte despite these "particularly apt" criticisms—gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to consider whether to finally overrule Brulotte.

Kimble concerned a long-running dispute between Stephen Kimble, the inventor of a patented toy that allows users to shoot foam string out of a glove, and Marvel Enterprises, the owner of the Spider-Man comic book franchise. In 1997, Kimble sued Marvel for patent infringement and breach of an oral contract. As part of a settlement agreement to resolve the litigation, Marvel agreed to purchase Kimble's patent for a cash payment plus a 3% royalty. A number of years later, the parties found themselves in litigation over the amount of royalties due to Kimble under the settlement. The district court granted summary judgment for Marvel, holding that the settlement was a "hybrid" license and, because it did not specify different royalty rates for the patent and non-patent rights, the royalties had to end when the patent expired, as dictated by Brulotte.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that its "application of the Brulotte rule in this case arguably deprives Kimble of part of the benefit of his bargain based upon a technical detail that both parties regarded as insignificant at the time of the agreement," but the circuit court nevertheless held it was bound by Brulotte to affirm the judgment in favor of Marvel.13

Kimble's case brought out a number of amici, nearly all supporting Kimble's argument that Brulotte is ripe for reconsideration because (i) it prevents efficient and procompetitive licensing transactions, and (ii) it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's current jurisprudence regarding the market power conferred by ownership of a patent.14

Amicus briefs from academic and research organizations maintained that Brulotte emphasizes form over function, discouraging flexible licensing agreements needed for commercialization of inventions, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biologic areas. These amici argued that licensing arrangements incorporating post-expiration royalties can be economically efficient for both licensor and licensee and can benefit society by facilitating the introduction of new treatments to the market.

Despite the history of scholarship criticizing Brulotte, the Solicitor General's amicus brief in Kimble recommended that principles of stare decisis should apply. The government argued that Brulotte should be left undisturbed because it reflects the policies of the federal patent laws—not the antitrust laws. In the government's view, the economic critique of Brulotte does not justify overturning a settled rule of patent policy.

III. THE COURT'S DECISION

The majority (Kagan, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) agreed with the Solicitor General, relying on stare decisis to decline to overrule Brulotte. Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, explained that stare decisis carries enhanced force when interpreting a statute and, absent "special justification," Court decisions interpreting a statute "are balls tossed into Congress's court, for acceptance or not as that branch elects."15 Against this "superpowered form of stare decisis," the Court demanded a "superspecial justification" warranting reversal.16

The Court was not persuaded by Kimble's arguments (and those of the amici supporting him) that the Brulotte rule posed a problem so severe as to require reversing this settled precedent: "an argument that we got something wrong—even a good argument to that effect—cannot by itself justify scrapping settled precedent."17 The Court reasoned that the statutory and doctrinal underpinnings of Brulotte—i.e., cutting off patent rights after a set number of years—have not eroded over time.

The Court also concluded that nothing about the Brulotte rule has proved unworkable. The Court admitted that the Brulotte rule "prevents some parties from entering into deals they desire," but explained that, nevertheless, "parties can often find ways around Brulotte, enabling them to achieve those same ends."18 In particular, the Court noted that parties could agree to amortize payments beyond the term of the patent, so long as the post-expiration royalties were not for post-expiration use of the patent. 19 In fact, the Court explained, trading in Brulotte for the antitrust rule of reason (as Kimble advocated) would make the law less workable than it is now.20

The Court also went to great lengths to explain that this was a patent case, not an antitrust case, and that this distinction was meaningful to the outcome. The Court explained that if "Brulotte were an antitrust rather than a patent case," the Court might agree that an "economic mistake [could] suffice to overcome stare decisis."21 According to the Court, Congress intended the Sherman Act's "reference to 'restraint of trade' to have 'changing content,' and authorized courts to oversee the term's 'dynamic potential.'"22 The Court has therefore "felt relatively free to revise our legal analysis as economic understanding evolves and ... to reverse antitrust precedents that misperceived a practice's competitive consequences."23

"But Brulotte is a patent rather than an antitrust case." Thus, "even assuming that Brulotte relied on an economic misjudgment," the Court explained, "Congress is the right entity to fix it. By contrast with the Sherman Act, the patent laws do not turn over exceptional law-shaping authority to the courts."24

Finally, the Court was unconvinced by Kimble's claims that the Brulotte rule has discouraged technological innovation and harmed the American economy. The Court recognized that while "post-patent royalties are sometimes not anticompetitive, we just cannot say whether barring them imposes any meaningful drag on innovation." Neither Kimble nor his amici offered any empirical evidence connecting the Brulotte rule to reduced innovation, and the Court declined "to take their word for the problem," commenting that "[t]ruth be told, if forced to decide that issue, we would not know where or how to start."25

In dissent, Justice Alito (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) rejected the foundation of the majority's stare decisis theory. The dissent contended that Brulotte was not a decision interpreting a statute; rather it was a "bald act of policymaking," and one that is "based on a policy that is difficult to defend."26 Accordingly, the dissent concluded that the Court's traditional approach to stare decisis does not require retention of Brulotte's per se rule and that the Court should "reconsider and overrule our obvious mistake [i.e., Brulotte's assumption that post-expiration royalties represent an enlargement of a patentee's monopoly]."27

IV. CONCLUSION

With regard to the Brulotte rule, the Court's decision in Kimble merely continues the status quo. Parties engaged in patent licensing will have to continue to find ways to work within the construct of the rule.

The decision may, however, have implications for other challenges in patent cases. In several areas, parties have raised antitrust and competition policy concerns in support of certain interpretation of the patent statutes, such as the definition of "reasonable royalties" under 35 U.S.C. section 284. Kimble may mean that such concerns have less force in cases challenging established interpretations of those statutes.

Footnotes

1 379 U.S. 29 (1964).

2 Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), slip op at 7, 13

3 Id. at 14-15.

4 Id. at 33 (citations omitted).

5 Id. at 32.

6 For an in-depth discussion of the criticisms of the Brulotte rule and its impact on licensing practices, see Sean Gates and Jeny Maier, Brulotte's Continuing Shadow Over Patent Licensing, 4(3) Oxford J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. (2009), available at http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/01/18/jiplp.jpn247.short.

7 10 PHILLIP E. AREEDA, EINER ELHAUGE & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW: AN APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES AND THEIR  APPLICATION § 1782c, at 492 (2004); see also Michael Koenig, Patent Royalties Extending Beyond Expiration: An Illogical Ban from Brulotte to Scheiber, 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 5 (2003).

8 Harold See & Frank M. Caprio, The Trouble with Brulotte: The Patent Royalty Term and Patent Monopoly Extension, 1990 Utah L. Rev. 813, 814, 851 (1990).

9 Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, Antitrust Issues in the Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Nine No-No's Meet the Nineties, 1997 Brookings Papers on Econ. Activity, Microeconomics 283, 322 (1997).

10 USM Corp. v. SPS Techs., Inc., 694 F.2d 505, 510-11 (7th Cir. 1982).

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Kimble v. Marvel Enters., Inc., 727 F.3d 856, 866-67 (9th Cir. 2013).

14 See Sean Gates and Jeny Maier, Will the Supreme Court Remove Brulotte's Shadow Over Patent Licensing? (Dec. 16, 2014), available at http://www.mofo.com/~/media/Files/ClientAlert/2014/12/141216PatentLicensing.pdf

15 Kimble, slip op at 8.

16 Id. at 10.

17 Id. at 8.

18 Id. at 5-6.

19 Id.

20 Id. at 12 ("whatever [the rule of reason's] merits may be for deciding antitrust claims, that 'elaborate inquiry' produces notoriously high litigation costs and unpredictable results"). 

21 Id. at 14.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Id. at 17.

26 Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), slip op at 2 (Alito, J., dissenting).

27 Id. at 8. 

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Sean P. Gates
Jeny M. Maier
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions