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

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

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

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.