Case Summary
**Case Summary: Stephen Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc.**
**Docket Number:** 7838549
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Date:** Decided June 22, 2015
**Background:**
The case of Stephen Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. centers around a patent dispute involving a toy that is activated by a hand gesture. Stephen Kimble, the inventor, held a patent for his product called "web-shooter," which allows users to shoot foam string from a toy device while mimicking spider-like movements. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. produced a similar product that Kimble claimed infringed on his patent.
**Facts:**
In 1990, Kimble filed for a patent for his toy and later entered into a licensing agreement with Marvel Enterprises. The agreement allowed Marvel to use Kimble's patented technology. However, the agreement limited royalty payments to Kimble and ended after the patent expired. Upon expiry, Marvel continued to produce and sell the product without paying royalties to Kimble.
**Issues:**
The primary legal issue in this case was whether Kimble was entitled to royalties even after the patent had expired, particularly whether the agreement’s terms allowed for ongoing royalties that extended past the patent's lifespan.
**Ruling:**
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marvel Enterprises, affirming the principle that once a patent expires, the patent holder has no right to enforce royalties. The Court asserted that the patent system allows inventors to secure exclusive rights for a limited time, after which the invention enters the public domain and can be used freely by others.
**Significance:**
This case is significant as it underscores the limitations of patent rights and the principle that patents are time-limited. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies that continued royalties based on a patent’s existence are not enforceable once that patent has expired, reaffirming the notion that public access to inventions is crucial after the patent term concludes.
**Conclusion:**
Stephen Kimble's case against Marvel Enterprises highlights the importance of understanding patent rights, the nature of licensing agreements, and the implications of patent expiration. The ruling emphasized that while inventors hold exclusive rights during the life of a patent, those rights do not extend indefinitely. This decision serves as a precedent regarding patent law and financial agreements related to inventions.