The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration

Aug 24, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Chad Everignham

In reaffirming Brulotte and its 50 years of precedent, the Court explained that the Brulotte rule is easy to apply: “A court need only ask whether a licensing agreement provides royalties for post­expiration use of a patent. If not, no problem; if so, no dice.” Although the Brulotte rule may prevent “some parties from entering into deals they desire,” the Court noted that “parties can often find ways around Brulotte, enabling them to achieve those same ends.” For example, “Brulotte allows a licensee to defer payments for pre­expiration use of a patent into the postexpiration period; all the decision bars are royalties for using an invention after it has moved into the public domain.” Likewise, Brulotte permits royalties to “run until the last­running patent covered in the parties’ agreement expires” and “post­expiration royalties are allowable so long as tied to a non­patent right—even when closely related to a patent.” Finally, the court explained that “Brulotte poses no bar to business arrangements other than royalties—all kinds of joint ventures, for example—that enable parties to share the risks and rewards of commercializing an invention.”

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ­­­­ (2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.