Will the Supreme Court Remove <i>Brulotte</i>'s Shadow Over Patent Licensing?

Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the collection of royalties after a patent's expiration constitutes per se patent misuse. Although criticized by scholars, antitrust agencies and the lower courts, Brulotte has not only endured, it has impacted licensing practices in a number of contexts. See, Sean Gates & Jeny Maier, “Brulotte 's Continuing Shadow Over Patent Licensing'” 4 J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. 181 (2009). Brulottelooms large over the licensing of a single patent, packages of patents, patents combined with trade secrets, and patent applications.'See, e.g., Outman v. Western Contracting Corp., 204 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 289 (N.D. Iowa 1979); Phillips Screw Co. v. Amtel, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 3, 5, 7 (D. Mass. 1978); Veltman v. Nortel Simon, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 774, 775 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Technical Dev. Corp., 433 F.2d 55, 61 (7th Cir. 1970); Well Surveys, Inc. v. Perfo-Log, Inc., 396 F.2d 15 (10th Cir. 1968); Rocform Corp. v. Acitelli-Standard Concrete Wall, 367 F.2d 678 (6th Cir. 1966); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1983); Baladevon, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 871 F. Supp. 89 (D. Mass. 1994); Sanford Redmond, Inc. v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1222 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Veltman, 425 F. Supp. 774; Meehan v. PPG Indus., Inc., 802 F.2d 881 (7th Cir. 1986).'It has bedeviled licensing negotiations, voided freely negotiated contracts, and been used to reopen what were considered long-settled agreements. All that may change, however, because the Court ' contrary to the suggestion of the Solicitor General ' granted certiorari in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 13-720 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2014), to decide whether to overrule Brulotte.