kimble
et
al
marvel
entertainment
llc
successor
marvel
enterprises
argued
march
decided
june
respondent
marvel
entertainment
corporate
predecessor
agreed
purchase
petitioner
stephen
kimble
patent
toy
exchange
lump
sum
plus
royalty
future
sales
agreement
set
end
date
royalties
patent
neared
end
statutory
term
marvel
discovered
brulotte
thys
held
patentee
continue
receive
royalties
sales
made
patent
expires
marvel
sought
declaratory
judgment
federal
district
confirming
stop
paying
kimble
royalties
district
granted
relief
ninth
circuit
affirmed
kimble
asks
overrule
brulotte
held
stare
decisis
requires
adhere
brulotte
pp
patent
typically
expires
years
application
date
point
unrestricted
right
make
use
article
passes
public
see
sears
roebuck
stiffel
carefully
guarded
significance
expiration
date
declining
enforce
laws
contracts
restrict
free
public
access
formerly
patented
well
unpatentable
inventions
see
scott
paper
marcalus
mfg
brulotte
applied
principle
patent
licensing
agreement
provided
payment
royalties
accruing
patent
expiration
held
royalty
provision
unlawful
per
se
continued
patent
monopoly
beyond
patent
period
conflicted
patent
law
policy
establishing
public
domain
ibid
brulotte
rule
may
prevent
parties
entering
deals
desire
parties
often
find
ways
achieve
similar
outcomes
example
brulotte
leaves
parties
free
defer
payments
use
patent
tie
royalties
rights
make
business
arrangements
contending
alternatives
enough
kimble
asks
abandon
brulotte
rule
favor
approach
based
antitrust
law
rule
reason
pp
doctrine
stare
decisis
provides
today
stand
yesterday
decisions
application
doctrine
though
inexorable
command
preferred
course
payne
tennessee
overruling
case
always
requires
special
justification
belief
precedent
wrongly
decided
halliburton
erica
john
fund
precedent
interprets
statute
stare
decisis
carries
enhanced
force
since
critics
free
take
objections
congress
see
patterson
mclean
credit
union
congress
moreover
spurned
multiple
opportunities
reverse
brulotte
see
watson
even
rebuffed
bills
replaced
brulotte
per
se
rule
standard
kimble
urges
addition
brulotte
implicates
property
contract
law
two
contexts
considerations
favoring
stare
decisis
acme
payne
parties
especially
likely
rely
precedents
ordering
affairs
given
good
reasons
adhering
stare
decisis
case
need
strong
justification
overruling
brulotte
traditional
justifications
abandoning
stare
decisis
help
kimble
first
brulotte
doctrinal
underpinnings
eroded
time
patent
statute
issue
brulotte
essentially
unchanged
precedent
brulotte
primarily
relied
like
decisions
enforcing
patent
date
remains
good
law
indeed
brulotte
close
relation
whole
web
precedents
means
overruling
threaten
others
second
nothing
brulotte
proved
unworkable
see
patterson
contrary
decision
simple
apply
particularly
compared
kimble
proposed
alternative
produce
high
litigation
costs
unpredictable
results
pp
neither
justifications
kimble
offers
gives
cause
overrule
brulotte
pp
kimble
first
argues
brulotte
hinged
economic
error
assumption
royalties
always
anticompetitive
sees
error
kimble
economic
analysis
even
assuming
kimble
right
brulotte
relied
economic
misjudgment
congress
right
entity
fix
patent
laws
like
sherman
act
gives
courts
exceptional
authority
shape
law
reconsider
precedent
based
better
economic
analysis
moreover
kimble
argument
based
evolving
economic
theory
rather
claim
brulotte
simply
made
wrong
call
claim
fails
clear
stare
decisis
high
bar
event
brulotte
even
turn
notion
royalties
harm
competition
instead
brulotte
simply
applied
categorical
principle
benefits
must
end
patent
term
expires
kimble
real
complaint
may
go
merits
principle
policy
matter
congress
gets
make
patent
policy
pp
kimble
also
argues
brulotte
suppresses
technological
innovation
harms
national
economy
preventing
parties
reaching
agreements
commercialize
patents
tell
whether
true
brulotte
leaves
parties
free
enter
alternative
arrangements
may
suffice
accomplish
parties
payment
deferral
goals
neither
kimble
amici
offer
empirical
evidence
connecting
brulotte
decreased
innovation
event
claims
statutory
precedent
consequences
innovation
appropriately
addressed
congress
halliburton
pp
affirmed
kagan
delivered
opinion
scalia
kennedy
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
joined
alito
filed
dissenting
opinion
roberts
thomas
joined
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
stephen
kimble
et
petitioners
marvel
entertainment
llc
successor
marvel
enterprises
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
kagan
delivered
opinion
brulotte
thys
held
patent
holder
charge
royalties
use
invention
patent
term
expired
sole
question
presented
whether
overrule
brulotte
adhering
principles
stare
decisis
decline
critics
brulotte
rule
must
seek
relief
congress
petitioner
stephen
kimble
obtained
patent
toy
allows
children
adults
spider
person
shooting
webs
really
pressurized
foam
string
palm
hand
patent
abstract
filed
may
respondent
marvel
entertainment
llc
marvel
makes
markets
products
featuring
among
characters
seeking
sell
license
patent
kimble
met
president
marvel
corporate
predecessor
discuss
idea
fun
soon
afterward
without
remunerating
kimble
company
began
marketing
web
blaster
toy
like
kimble
patented
invention
enables
action
heroes
mimic
use
polyester
glove
canister
foam
kimble
sued
marvel
alleging
among
things
patent
infringement
parties
ultimately
settled
litigation
agreement
provided
marvel
purchase
kimble
patent
exchange
lump
sum
dollars
royalty
marvel
future
sales
web
blaster
similar
products
parties
set
end
date
royalties
apparently
contemplating
continue
long
kids
want
imitate
whatever
spider
marvel
stumbled
across
brulotte
case
heart
dispute
negotiating
settlement
neither
side
aware
brulotte
marvel
must
pleased
learn
brulotte
read
patent
laws
prevent
patentee
receiving
royalties
sales
made
patent
expiration
see
decision
effect
sunset
settlement
royalty
making
discovery
marvel
sought
declaratory
judgment
federal
district
confirming
company
cease
paying
royalties
come
end
kimble
patent
term
approved
relief
holding
brulotte
made
royalty
provision
unenforceable
expiration
kimble
patent
supp
appeals
ninth
circuit
affirmed
though
making
clear
none
happy
brulotte
rule
complained
counterintuitive
rationale
arguably
unconvincing
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
courts
commentators
suggested
overrule
reasons
stare
decisis
demur
ii
patents
endow
holders
certain
superpowers
limited
time
crafting
patent
laws
congress
struck
balance
fostering
innovation
ensuring
public
access
discoveries
patent
lasts
patentee
possesses
exclusive
rights
patented
article
rights
may
sell
license
royalty
payments
chooses
see
patent
typically
expires
years
day
application
filed
see
patent
expires
patentee
prerogatives
expire
right
make
use
article
free
restriction
passes
public
see
sears
roebuck
stiffel
carefully
guarded
date
patent
laws
limits
case
case
construed
laws
preclude
measures
restrict
free
access
formerly
patented
well
unpatentable
inventions
one
line
cases
struck
state
statutes
consequence
see
bonito
boats
thunder
craft
boats
compco
lighting
virtue
federal
law
reasoned
article
patent
expired
like
unpatentable
article
public
domain
may
made
sold
whoever
chooses
sears
related
line
decisions
deemed
unenforceable
private
contract
provisions
limiting
free
use
inventions
scott
paper
marcalus
mfg
example
determined
manufacturer
agree
refrain
challenging
patent
validity
allowing
even
single
company
restrict
use
expired
invalid
patent
explained
deprive
consuming
public
advantage
derived
free
exploitation
discovery
permit
result
whether
authorized
express
contract
impermissibly
undermine
patent
laws
see
also
edward
katzinger
chicago
metallic
mfg
ruling
scott
paper
applies
licensees
lear
adkins
refusing
enforce
contract
requiring
licensee
pay
royalties
contesting
patent
validity
brulotte
brewed
barrel
inventor
licensed
patented
machine
farmers
exchange
royalties
hop
crops
harvested
patents
expiration
dates
vote
held
agreement
unenforceable
unlawful
per
se
extent
provided
payment
royalties
accru
ing
last
patents
incorporated
machines
expired
arrive
conclusion
began
statutory
provision
setting
length
patent
term
see
quoting
version
emphasizing
patented
invention
become
public
property
term
expires
quoted
scott
paper
attempt
limit
licensee
use
invention
whatever
legal
device
employed
runs
counter
policy
purpose
patent
laws
quoting
brulotte
view
contracts
pay
royalties
use
continue
patent
monopoly
beyond
patent
period
even
though
licensee
affected
agreements
conflict
patent
law
policy
establishing
public
domain
every
person
make
free
use
formerly
patented
product
ibid
brulotte
rule
like
others
making
contract
provisions
unenforceable
prevents
parties
entering
deals
desire
compared
fees
royalty
plans
draw
payments
time
tie
payments
month
year
covered
product
commercial
success
sometimes
parties
longer
arrangement
lasts
better
beyond
patent
term
end
extended
payment
period
coupled
presumably
lower
rate
may
bring
price
patent
holder
seeks
within
range
licensee
anyone
bought
product
installment
relate
see
brief
memorial
sloan
kettering
cancer
center
et
al
amici
curiae
extended
term
may
better
allocate
risks
rewards
associated
commercializing
inventions
notably
years
development
work
stand
licensing
patent
bringing
product
market
see
milgrim
bensen
milgrim
licensing
either
goal
brulotte
may
pose
obstacle
yet
parties
often
find
ways
around
brulotte
enabling
achieve
ends
start
brulotte
allows
licensee
defer
payments
use
patent
period
decision
bars
royalties
using
invention
moved
public
domain
see
zenith
radio
hazeltine
research
licensee
agree
example
pay
licensor
sum
equal
sales
patent
term
amortize
amount
years
arrangement
least
bring
early
outlays
even
everything
parties
might
want
allocate
risk
long
timeframe
parties
still
options
licensing
agreement
covers
either
multiple
patents
additional
rights
brulotte
royalties
may
run
patent
covered
parties
agreement
expires
see
royalties
allowable
long
tied
right
even
closely
related
patent
see
milgrim
licensing
means
example
license
involving
patent
trade
secret
set
royalty
patent
period
compensation
two
combined
royalty
afterward
payment
trade
secret
alone
finally
broadly
brulotte
poses
bar
business
arrangements
royalties
kinds
joint
ventures
example
enable
parties
share
risks
rewards
commercializing
invention
contending
alternatives
enough
kimble
asks
us
abandon
brulotte
favor
flexible
analysis
royalty
clauses
rule
reason
brief
petitioners
used
antitrust
law
rule
reason
requires
courts
evaluate
practice
effect
competition
taking
account
variety
factors
including
specific
information
relevant
business
condition
practice
imposed
practice
history
nature
effect
state
oil
khan
primary
importance
context
kimble
posits
whether
patent
holder
power
relevant
market
might
able
curtail
competition
see
brief
petitioners
illinois
tool
works
independent
ink
patent
necessarily
confer
market
power
resolving
issue
kimble
notes
entails
economic
inquiry
definition
market
barriers
entry
like
brief
petitioners
quoting
hovenkamp
janis
lemley
leslie
ip
antitrust
supp
hovenkamp
iii
overruling
precedent
never
small
matter
stare
decisis
english
idea
today
stand
yesterday
decisions
foundation
stone
rule
law
michigan
bay
mills
indian
nity
slip
application
doctrine
although
inexorable
command
preferred
course
promotes
evenhanded
predictable
consistent
development
legal
principles
fosters
reliance
judicial
decisions
contributes
actual
perceived
integrity
judicial
process
payne
tennessee
also
reduces
incentives
challenging
settled
precedents
saving
parties
courts
expense
endless
relitigation
respecting
stare
decisis
means
sticking
wrong
decisions
doctrine
rests
idea
justice
brandeis
famously
wrote
usually
important
applicable
rule
law
settled
settled
right
burnet
coronado
oil
gas
dissenting
opinion
indeed
stare
decisis
consequence
extent
sustains
incorrect
decisions
correct
judgments
need
principle
prop
accordingly
argument
got
something
wrong
even
good
argument
effect
justify
scrapping
settled
precedent
otherwise
said
alone
sufficient
decide
case
differently
reverse
course
require
well
termed
special
justification
belief
precedent
wrongly
decided
halliburton
erica
john
fund
slip
stare
decisis
carries
enhanced
force
decision
like
brulotte
interprets
statute
unlike
constitutional
case
critics
ruling
take
objections
across
street
congress
correct
mistake
sees
see
patterson
mclean
credit
union
true
contrary
dissent
view
see
post
opinion
alito
regardless
whether
decision
focused
statutory
text
also
relied
brulotte
policies
purposes
animating
law
see
bilski
kappos
indeed
apply
statutory
stare
decisis
even
decision
announced
judicially
created
doctrine
designed
implement
federal
statute
halliburton
slip
interpretive
decisions
whatever
way
reasoned
effectively
become
part
statutory
scheme
subject
like
rest
congressional
change
absent
special
justification
balls
tossed
congress
acceptance
branch
elects
congress
spurned
multiple
opportunities
reverse
brulotte
openings
frequent
clear
ever
sees
brulotte
governed
licensing
agreements
half
century
see
watson
stating
long
congressional
acquiescence
totaling
years
enhance
even
usual
precedential
force
accord
interpretations
statutes
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
time
congress
repeatedly
amended
patent
laws
including
specific
provision
brulotte
rested
see
uruguay
round
agreements
act
stat
increasing
length
patent
term
act
stat
limiting
claims
brulotte
survived
every
change
indeed
congress
rebuffed
bills
replaced
brulotte
per
se
rule
analysis
kimble
urges
see
tit
ii
providing
patent
owner
guilty
illegal
extension
patent
right
reason
licensing
practices
unless
practices
violate
antitrust
laws
congress
continual
reworking
patent
laws
never
brulotte
rule
supports
leaving
decision
place
yet
done
subject
matter
brulotte
adds
case
adhering
precedent
brulotte
lies
intersection
two
areas
law
property
patents
contracts
licensing
agreements
often
recognized
contexts
cases
involving
property
contract
rights
considerations
favoring
stare
decisis
acme
payne
khan
parties
especially
likely
rely
precedents
ordering
affairs
sure
marvel
kimble
disagree
whether
brulotte
actually
generated
reliance
marvel
says
yes
parties
claims
specify
end
date
royalties
licensing
agreements
instead
relying
brulotte
default
rule
brief
respondent
see
epstein
eckstrom
licensing
foreign
domestic
operations
noting
necessary
specify
term
license
decision
like
brulotte
limits
law
overturning
brulotte
thus
upset
expectations
licenses
patents
spring
back
life
true
says
kimble
unfair
surprise
unlikely
meaningful
number
license
agreements
actually
exist
reply
brief
honest
know
suspect
marvel
kimble
even
uncertainty
score
cuts
marvel
direction
long
see
reasonable
possibility
parties
structured
business
transactions
light
brulotte
one
reason
let
stand
superpowered
form
stare
decisis
need
superspecial
justification
warrant
reversing
brulotte
kinds
reasons
often
held
sufficient
past
help
kimble
anything
reinforce
unwillingness
asks
first
brulotte
statutory
doctrinal
underpinnings
eroded
time
reverse
statutory
interpretations
often
point
subsequent
legal
developments
either
growth
judicial
doctrine
action
taken
congress
removed
basis
decision
patterson
calling
primary
reason
overruling
statutory
precedent
core
feature
patent
laws
brulotte
relied
remains
section
draws
sharp
line
cutting
patent
rights
set
number
years
continued
draw
legislative
choice
broad
policy
favoring
unrestricted
use
invention
patent
expiration
see
supra
scott
paper
decision
brulotte
primarily
relied
remains
good
law
decisions
refusing
enforce
either
state
laws
private
contracts
constraining
individuals
free
use
formerly
patented
unpatentable
discoveries
see
supra
brulotte
kind
doctrinal
dinosaur
legal
sometimes
depart
stare
decisis
compare
alleyne
sotomayor
concurring
slip
contrary
decision
close
relation
whole
web
precedents
means
reversing
threaten
others
brulotte
outdated
example
scott
paper
prefer
unsettle
stable
second
nothing
brulotte
proved
unworkable
see
patterson
identifying
unworkability
another
traditional
justification
overruling
precedent
decision
simplicity
apply
need
ask
whether
licensing
agreement
provides
royalties
use
patent
problem
dice
brulotte
ease
use
appears
still
sharper
relief
compared
kimble
proposed
alternative
recall
wants
courts
employ
antitrust
law
rule
reason
identify
invalidate
royalty
clauses
consequences
see
supra
whatever
merits
may
deciding
antitrust
claims
elaborate
inquiry
produces
notoriously
high
litigation
costs
unpredictable
results
arizona
maricopa
county
medical
reason
trading
brulotte
rule
reason
make
law
less
workable
case
sticking
precedent
grows
stronger
even
usual
reasons
abandoning
stare
decisis
cut
way
iv
lacking
recourse
traditional
justifications
overruling
prior
decision
kimble
offers
two
different
ones
claims
first
brulotte
rests
mistaken
view
competitive
effects
royalties
contends
next
brulotte
suppresses
technological
innovation
harms
nation
economy
dissent
offers
versions
arguments
see
post
consider
two
claims
turn
answers
much
kimble
reasoning
may
give
congress
cause
upset
brulotte
warrant
according
kimble
overrule
brulotte
hinged
error
economics
assumed
royalty
arrangements
invariably
anticompetitive
brief
petitioners
true
kimble
notes
indeed
agreements
often
increase
inhibit
competition
patent
expires
see
noted
earlier
longer
payment
period
typically
go
lower
royalty
rate
see
supra
patent
term
reduced
rates
may
lead
lower
consumer
prices
making
patented
technology
competitive
alternatives
lesser
rates
may
enable
companies
afford
license
fostering
competition
among
patent
users
see
brief
petitioners
patent
expiration
kimble
continues
benefits
follow
absent
high
barriers
entry
material
caveat
even
agree
see
tr
oral
arg
licensee
continuing
obligation
pay
royalties
encourages
new
companies
begin
making
product
figuring
quickly
attract
customers
undercutting
licensee
price
see
brief
petitioners
light
realities
kimble
concludes
brulotte
per
se
rule
makes
little
sense
join
issue
kimble
economics
follows
broad
scholarly
consensus
supports
kimble
view
competitive
effects
royalties
see
error
shared
analysis
see
citing
numerous
treatises
articles
critiquing
brulotte
still
must
decide
means
brulotte
kimble
course
says
means
decision
must
go
positing
brulotte
turned
belief
royalties
always
anticompetitive
invokes
decisions
abandoned
antitrust
precedents
premised
similarly
shaky
economic
reasoning
see
brief
petitioners
citing
leegin
creative
leather
products
psks
illinois
tool
works
agree
kimble
conclusion
must
resolve
two
questions
favor
first
even
assuming
kimble
accurately
characterizes
brulotte
basis
decision
economic
mistake
suffice
overcome
stare
decisis
second
fundamentally
brulotte
actually
founded
kimble
contends
analysis
competitive
effects
brulotte
antitrust
rather
patent
case
might
answer
questions
kimble
like
viewed
stare
decisis
force
cases
involving
sherman
act
see
khan
congress
explained
intended
law
reference
restraint
trade
changing
content
authorized
courts
oversee
term
dynamic
potential
business
electronics
sharp
electronics
therefore
felt
relatively
free
revise
legal
analysis
economic
understanding
evolves
kimble
notes
reverse
antitrust
precedents
misperceived
practice
competitive
consequences
see
leegin
moreover
question
cases
whether
challenged
activity
restrained
trade
rulings
necessarily
turned
understanding
economics
see
business
electronics
accordingly
overturn
decisions
light
sounder
economic
reasoning
take
terms
halliburton
slip
brulotte
patent
rather
antitrust
case
answers
questions
instead
go
kimble
begin
even
assuming
brulotte
relied
economic
misjudgment
congress
right
entity
fix
contrast
sherman
act
patent
laws
turn
exceptional
authority
courts
accordingly
statutory
stare
decisis
interprets
congress
decides
whether
amend
retains
usual
strong
force
see
supra
shown
doctrine
ordinarily
bend
wrong
merits
arguments
instead
assumes
congress
correct
whatever
mistakes
commit
see
supra
kimble
offer
reason
think
erred
claim
special
indeed
even
point
anything
changed
since
brulotte
new
empirical
studies
advances
economic
theory
compare
halliburton
slip
considering
though
finding
insufficient
recent
economic
research
argument
brulotte
knew
needed
know
determine
royalties
usually
anticompetitive
made
wrong
call
see
brief
petitioners
claim
even
fails
clear
stare
decisis
high
bar
event
brulotte
hinge
mistake
kimble
identifies
although
language
invoked
economic
concepts
see
supra
rely
notion
royalties
harm
competition
surprising
patent
laws
unlike
sherman
act
aim
maximize
competition
large
extent
opposite
patent
term
unlike
restraint
trade
standard
provides
rule
rather
calling
analysis
deciding
whether
royalties
comport
patent
law
brulotte
undertake
assess
practice
likely
competitive
effects
instead
applied
categorical
principle
patents
benefits
must
end
terms
expire
see
brulotte
supra
specifically
put
held
scott
paper
congress
made
judgment
day
patent
lapses
formerly
protected
invention
must
available
free
restraints
even
single
licensee
access
invention
clash
principle
see
brulotte
licensee
obligation
pay
royalties
conflicts
free
market
visualized
period
runs
counter
policy
purpose
patent
laws
quoting
scott
paper
patent
antitrust
policy
gave
rise
conclusion
royalty
contracts
unenforceable
utterly
regardless
demonstrable
effect
competition
hovenkamp
kimble
real
complaint
may
go
merits
patent
policy
terms
formalis
rigid
ity
detachment
economic
reality
brief
petitioners
different
version
argument
brulotte
wrong
anything
version
less
capable
last
trumping
statutory
stare
decisis
choice
patent
policy
lies
first
foremost
congress
kimble
thinks
patent
law
insistence
unrestricted
access
formerly
patented
inventions
leaves
little
room
royalties
congress
proper
audience
kimble
also
seeks
support
wellspring
patent
policy
goal
promoting
innovation
brulotte
contends
discourages
technological
innovation
significant
damage
american
economy
brief
petitioners
recall
licensors
licensees
may
benefit
royalty
arrangements
allow
longer
payment
period
precise
allocation
risk
see
supra
parties
ideal
licensing
agreement
barred
kimble
reasons
may
reach
agreement
see
brief
petitioners
possibility
may
discourage
invention
first
instance
bottom
line
kimble
concludes
breakthrough
technologies
never
see
light
day
maybe
maybe
recognize
royalties
sometimes
anticompetitive
say
whether
barring
imposes
meaningful
drag
innovation
explained
brulotte
leaves
open
various
ways
involving
licensing
business
arrangements
accomplish
payment
deferral
alike
see
supra
alternatives
may
offer
parties
precise
set
benefits
obligations
prefer
might
still
suffice
bring
patent
holders
product
developers
together
ensure
inventions
get
public
neither
kimble
amici
offered
empirical
evidence
connecting
brulotte
decreased
innovation
essentially
ask
us
take
word
problem
acts
licensor
licensee
patented
inventions
also
implementing
patent
policy
vigorously
disputes
brulotte
caused
significant
economic
harm
brief
amicus
curiae
truth
told
forced
decide
issue
know
start
one
good
reason
job
claims
statutory
precedent
serious
harmful
consequences
innovation
repeat
opinion
refrain
appropriately
addressed
congress
halliburton
slip
branch
far
one
capacity
assess
kimble
charge
brulotte
suppresses
technological
progress
concludes
brulotte
works
harm
congress
prerogative
determine
exact
right
response
choosing
policy
fix
among
many
conceivable
ones
optimally
serve
public
interest
noted
congress
legislates
actively
respect
patents
considering
concerns
kind
kimble
raises
see
supra
adhering
precedent
complaints
promote
values
courts
must
attend
leaving
matters
public
policy
congress
decide
undecide
stare
decisis
teaches
exercise
authority
sparingly
cf
lee
ditko
amazing
fantasy
world
great
power
must
also
come
great
responsibility
finding
many
reasons
staying
stare
decisis
course
special
justification
departing
decline
kimble
invitation
overrule
brulotte
reasons
stated
judgment
appeals
affirmed
ordered
alito
dissenting
stephen
kimble
et
petitioners
marvel
entertainment
llc
successor
marvel
enterprises
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
alito
chief
justice
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
employs
stare
decisis
normally
tool
restraint
reaffirm
clear
case
judicial
overreach
decision
brulotte
thys
held
parties
enter
patent
licensing
agreement
provides
royalty
payments
continue
term
patent
expires
decision
based
anything
plausibly
regarded
interpretation
terms
patent
act
based
instead
economic
theory
one
debunked
decision
interferes
ability
parties
negotiate
licensing
agreements
reflect
true
value
patent
disrupts
contractual
expectations
stare
decisis
require
us
retain
baseless
damaging
precedent
patent
act
provides
patent
grants
certain
exclusive
rights
patentee
heirs
assigns
term
years
act
says
nothing
whatsoever
royalties
brulotte
however
held
royalties
per
se
unlawful
made
little
pretense
finding
support
holding
language
act
instead
reasoned
allowing
royalties
subject
free
market
visualized
period
monopoly
influences
proper
place
invoking
antitrust
concepts
decision
suggested
arrangements
effort
enlarge
monopoly
patent
ing
sale
use
patented
article
purchase
use
unpatented
ones
whatever
merits
economic
argument
represent
serious
attempt
interpret
patent
act
licensing
agreement
provides
payment
royalties
patent
term
expires
enlarge
patentee
monopoly
extend
term
patent
simply
gives
licensor
contractual
right
thus
nothing
text
act
even
arguably
forbids
licensing
agreements
provide
royalties
brulotte
thus
bald
act
policymaking
simply
case
incorrect
statutory
interpretation
really
statutory
interpretation
brulotte
based
policymaking
based
policy
difficult
defend
indeed
intervening
years
reasoning
soundly
refuted
see
areeda
hovenkamp
antitrust
law
analysis
antitrust
principles
application
pp
ed
see
caprio
trouble
brulotte
patent
royalty
term
patent
monopoly
extension
utah
rev
scheiber
dolby
brief
petitioners
collecting
sources
ante
brulotte
misperceived
purpose
effect
royalties
decision
rested
view
royalties
extend
patent
term
means
tying
arrangement
understood
arrangement
patent
holder
leverages
monopoly
power
patent
term
require
payments
term
ends
invention
otherwise
available
free
public
use
agreements
pay
licensing
fees
patent
expires
enlarge
monopoly
patent
instead
nce
patent
term
expires
power
exclude
gone
left
problem
optimal
contract
design
easterbrook
contract
copyright
hous
rev
economics
simple
extending
royalty
term
allows
parties
spread
licensing
fees
longer
period
time
naturally
effect
reducing
fees
patent
term
see
ante
restricting
royalty
payments
patent
term
brulotte
requires
compresses
payment
shorter
period
higher
fees
patent
act
prefer
one
approach
however
good
reasons
parties
sometimes
prefer
royalties
upfront
fees
arrangements
effects
patent
holders
licensees
often
unsure
whether
patented
idea
yield
significant
economic
value
often
takes
years
monetize
innovation
circumstances
deferred
royalty
agreements
economically
efficient
encourage
innovators
like
universities
hospitals
institutions
invest
research
might
yield
marketable
products
decades
line
see
brief
memorial
sloan
kettering
cancer
center
et
al
amici
curiae
allow
producers
hedge
bets
develop
products
spreading
licensing
fees
longer
periods
see
ibid
prohibiting
arrangements
brulotte
erects
obstacle
efficient
patent
use
patent
law
areas
abandoned
per
se
rules
similarly
disruptive
effects
see
illinois
tool
works
independent
ink
leegin
creative
leather
products
psks
majority
downplays
harm
insisting
parties
often
find
ways
around
brulotte
ante
need
avoid
brulotte
economic
inefficiency
parties
always
aware
prohibition
case
amply
demonstrates
suggested
alternatives
provide
benefits
royalty
agreements
instance
although
agreement
amortize
payments
sales
patent
term
bring
early
outlays
admits
agreement
might
reflect
parties
risk
preferences
ante
moreover
arrangement
necessarily
yield
amount
total
royalties
particularly
invention
medical
breakthrough
takes
decades
develop
marketable
product
sort
agreements
brulotte
prohibits
allow
licensees
spread
costs
also
allowing
patent
holders
capitalize
inventions
top
brulotte
often
functions
upset
parties
expectations
case
illustrates
point
one
disputes
negotiating
settlement
neither
side
aware
brulotte
ante
without
knowledge
per
se
rule
parties
agreed
marvel
pay
royalties
future
sales
involving
web
blaster
similar
products
parties
aware
brulotte
might
agreed
higher
payments
patent
term
instead
sides
expected
royalty
payments
continue
marvel
stopped
selling
toys
fit
terms
agreement
happened
marvel
discovered
brulotte
used
decision
nullify
key
part
agreement
parties
contractual
expectations
shattered
petitioners
rights
extinguished
suggestion
parties
come
rely
brulotte
fanciful
believes
reasonable
possibility
parties
structured
business
transactions
light
brulotte
ante
support
conclusion
marvel
unsupported
assertion
contracts
might
specify
end
date
royalties
parties
expect
brulotte
supply
default
rule
credit
stops
short
endorsing
unlikely
prediction
saying
uncertainty
score
cuts
marvel
direction
ante
real
uncertainty
know
marvel
assertion
correct
marvel
provided
evidence
support
ibid
reasons
believe
parties
actually
relied
brulotte
supply
default
rule
courts
enforce
contracts
parties
expected
see
lord
williston
contracts
ed
know
sure
however
brulotte
upended
parties
expectations
many
cases
see
scheiber
boggild
kenner
products
pitney
bowes
mestre
confirmed
problems
retaining
brulotte
clearly
outweigh
marvel
hypothetical
fears
ii
end
brulotte
virtue
decided
render
invincible
stare
decisis
important
rule
law
correct
judicial
decisions
adherence
prior
decisions
evenhanded
predictable
consistent
development
legal
principles
fosters
reliance
judicial
decisions
contributes
actual
perceived
integrity
judicial
process
pearson
callahan
quoting
payne
tennessee
stare
decisis
inexorable
command
payne
supra
washington
dawson
brandeis
dissenting
revisiting
precedent
particularly
appropriate
departure
upset
expectations
precedent
consists
rule
experience
pointed
precedent
shortcomings
pearson
supra
traditional
approach
stare
decisis
require
us
retain
brulotte
per
se
rule
brulotte
holding
basis
law
reasoning
thoroughly
disproved
poses
economic
barriers
stifle
innovation
unsettles
contractual
expectations
decisive
congress
altered
brulotte
rule
general
especially
reluctant
overturn
decisions
interpreting
statutes
decisions
undone
congress
see
john
sand
gravel
patterson
mclean
credit
union
calls
superpowered
form
stare
decisis
renders
statutory
interpretation
decisions
nearly
impervious
challenge
ante
think
goes
bit
far
initial
matter
give
protection
decisions
actually
interpret
statute
precedent
based
rule
grounded
anything
congress
enacted
properly
place
shoulders
congress
entire
burden
correcting
error
girouard
contrary
recognized
appropriate
us
correct
rules
sort
see
leegin
state
oil
khan
says
might
agree
brulotte
antitrust
precedent
stare
decisis
force
cases
involving
sherman
act
ante
distinction
unwarranted
willing
reexamine
antitrust
precedents
attributes
decisions
see
reason
approach
apply
precedent
issue
purporting
apply
statute
actually
based
policy
concerns
indeed
even
willing
reconsider
precedent
role
implicitly
assigned
federal
courts
sherman
act
parallel
patent
act
cases
even
taking
terms
brulotte
antitrust
decision
masquerading
patent
case
principally
concerned
patentees
improperly
leveraging
monopoly
power
see
expressly
characterized
royalties
tying
arrangements
see
makes
sense
afford
greater
stare
decisis
protection
brulotte
thinly
veiled
antitrust
reasoning
sherman
act
decisions
also
places
much
weight
congress
failure
overturn
brulotte
long
cautioned
best
treacherous
find
congressional
silence
alone
adoption
controlling
rule
law
girouard
supra
even
congress
considered
adopted
legislation
abrogate
judicial
ruling
inferred
congress
failure
act
shows
approves
ruling
see
central
bank
denver
first
interstate
bank
denver
everal
equally
tenable
inferences
may
drawn
inaction
ibid
quoting
pension
benefit
guaranty
corporation
ltv
passing
legislation
easy
task
federal
statute
must
withstand
finely
wrought
procedure
bicameralism
presentment
ins
chadha
clinton
city
new
york
see
art
within
onerous
process
additional
practical
hurdles
law
must
taken
discussion
passed
favor
pressing
matters
senate
rules
require
votes
end
debate
legislation
even
house
senate
agree
general
policy
details
measure
usually
must
hammered
conference
committee
repassed
houses
proper
understanding
doctrine
stare
decisis
prevent
us
reexamining
brulotte
even
defend
decision
merits
reconsider
overrule
obvious
mistake
reasons
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
petitioner
robert
grabb
later
acquired
interest
patent
simplicity
refer
kimble
brulotte
patent
holder
retained
ownership
patent
licensing
customers
use
patented
article
exchange
royalty
payments
see
contrast
kimble
sold
whole
patent
obtain
royalties
one
disputes
brulotte
covers
transaction
structured
alternative
way
see
scheiber
dolby
posner
brulotte
severely
seems
us
due
respect
justly
criticized
however
authority
overrule
decision
matter
dubious
reasoning
strikes
us
even
touch
current
thinking
decision
seems
ayres
klemperer
limiting
patentees
market
power
without
reducing
innovation
incentives
perverse
benefits
uncertainty
remedies
rev
analysis
suggests
brulotte
overruled
legal
erosion
kimble
gestures
change
treatment
patent
tying
agreements
contracts
conditioning
licensee
right
use
patent
purchase
unpatented
product
see
brief
petitioners
brulotte
decided
agreements
counted
per
se
antitrust
violations
patent
misuse
unlawful
patent
holder
wields
power
relevant
market
see
act
stat
adding
market
power
requirement
patent
misuse
context
illinois
tool
works
independent
ink
relying
legislative
change
overrule
antitrust
decisions
tying
adopt
standard
far
clear
old
rule
tying
among
brulotte
legal
underpinnings
brulotte
briefly
analogized
royalty
agreements
tying
arrangements
relating
statutory
caselaw
basis
holding
conclud
ing
royalties
unlawful
per
se
even
analogy
played
real
role
brulotte
development
tying
law
undercut
decision
rather
opposite
congress
took
lead
changing
treatment
tying
agreements
conspicuously
left
brulotte
place
indeed
congress
declined
enact
bills
modified
tying
doctrine
also
brulotte
see
supra
citing
sess
sess
choice
suggests
congressional
acquiescence
brulotte
supports
adhering
stare
decisis