In what many will read to be a light-heartedly penned opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, the impact of the court’s decision in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises will endure.
There, the creator of a Spider-Man-like toy “for shooting foam” from a glove worn by the user sought to enforce a royalty deal he struck with Marvel. The only problems were that his patent covering the invention had expired, and a prior 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brulotte v. Thys, bars any payments of royalties past a patent’s expiration date.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]