The US Supreme Court is to review a case about a Spider-Man Web Blaster toy.
The Court agreed to review the case – which is about unpaid royalty payments owed to the patent holder Stephen Kimble – last Friday.
No Andrew Garfield if Marvel Gets Spider-Man
As explained by The Hollywood Reporter, Kimble invented the Web Blaster – a toy arm-cannon that shoots out foam webbing – and patented the idea back in 1990. At the time, Kimble approached Marvel in the hopes of licensing the device. Not long after Marvel passed up Kimble's offer, a rival toymaker started making official Spider-Man Web Blasters. Kimble then sued for patent infringement and breach of an implied contract to pay him for using his idea.
In 2001, both Marvel and Kimble settled. Marvel purchased the patent rights from Kimble and agreed to pay Kimble three percent of product sales until the patent expired in 2010. The amount Kimble walked away with is estimated at around $6 million.
Then, as 2006 rolled round, Marvel licensed the Web Blaster to Hasbro, which caused another dispute over royalties. At that time, Kimble made claims over how the toys were being sold with other Spider-Man role-play items, such as masks. Following this, Marvel then launched a counterclaim.
The 2006 case eventually went up to the 9th Circuit in the Court of Appeals. However, 2013 saw a victory for Marvel and relief from future royalty payments thanks to the case of Brulotte v. Thys Co. in 1964, where the Supreme Court's decision prohibits patent holders from seeking royalties after the patent has expired, which it did in 2010.
In the petition, Kimble wanted the Court to address the 2013 decision and overrule it as unsound and the "product of a bygone era."
What happens next? Well, the Supreme Court will review the case to see if it makes sense to forbid patent holders from collecting patent royalties post-expiration.
The Hollywood Reporter goes on to note that Marvel has argued that the case of Brulotte v. Thys Co. was a "narrow rule," and that the current review doesn't warrant a departure from previously set precedents.
No comments:
Post a Comment