Brulotte Per Se Ban On Post-Expiration Royalties Remains But Options For Negotiating Post-Expiration Payments Exist

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Contributor

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
More than sixty years after deciding Brulotte v. Thys Co., the Supreme Court revisited the issue of post-expiration patent royalties in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC.
United States Intellectual Property

More than sixty years after deciding Brulotte v. Thys Co., the Supreme Court revisited the issue of post-expiration patent royalties in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC. Despite fifty years of unrelenting criticism, the Supreme Court declined to abandon Brulotte's per se ban on patent licenses extending royalties beyond expiration of the patent. In this article,  Gracie K. Mills and Jessica L. Roberts, Ph.D. recap Brulotte, explore Marvel's impact on the per se ban, and offers practical tips for maximizing flexibility in negotiating patent licenses within the Brulotte framework.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More