Atrium Medical's recent Supreme Court petition requests clarity on the conflicting interpretations surrounding the royalties collected post-patent expiration, based on the longstanding Brulotte and Kimble doctrines. In Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that patent holders cannot lawfully charge royalties beyond their patent's term. This was reiterated in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015), stressing simplicity in application. While licensing agreements can extend beyond expiration under certain circumstances, inconsistencies in judicial interpretations have emerged regarding what constitutes valid royalties. This necessitates further judicial guidance from the Supreme Court.
In 1964, the Supreme Court established in Brulotte v. Thys Co. that a patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.
The Kimble Court explained that this rule should be 'simplicity itself to apply.' A court need only ask whether a licensing agreement provides royalties for post-expiration use of a patent.
Collection
[
|
...
]