Supreme Court cuts the string on Spider-Man toy inventor's patent

WASHINGTON — Even Spider-Man can't unravel the nation's patent laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The justices turned thumbs down on an effort by the inventor of a Spider-Man toy to pocket royalties beyond the expiration of his patent. The wristband toy, which shoots foam string, became the basis for Marvel Enterprises' popular Web Blaster.

It was tempting, because the Supreme Court precedent that blocked Stephen Kimble's claim is one of the most unpopular on the books. That 50-year-old ruling in Brulotte v. Thys Co. has been criticized for decades by economists and judges forced to abide by its terms.

In the end, however, a majority of justices ruled that the precedent -- however flawed -- should be upheld. If royalties should be allowed to accrue after a patent expires, the court said, Congress could address it.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the 6-3 ruling, with the backing of the court's other liberals and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

"In this world, with great power there must also come -- great responsibility," she wrote, quoting directly from a Spider-Man comic written more than 50 years ago. For that reason, she said, the court should refrain from overruling its precedent.

"Patents endow their holders with certain superpowers, but only for a limited time," Kagan said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Alito wrote that Brulotte, which prevents the payment of royalties after a patent expires, was based "on an economic theory ... that has been debunked." He called it a "baseless and damaging precedent."

Though most patents are good for 20 years, private parties often enter into royalty agreements that do not specify an end date. Those frequently lead to lawsuits if the agreements are breached, usually because the party paying royalties discovers the patent has expired and stops payments.

In this case, Marvel argued it was not obligated to pay Kimble based on product sales after the patent's expiration. Two lower courts agreed, and Kimble — who has received more than $6 million — found his way to the Supreme Court only by arguing that the precedent for those decisions should be overturned.

Kimble's attorney argued in March that the 1964 ruling in Brulotte "suppresses innovation and interferes with the goals of the patent system, increasing the likelihood that potentially breakthrough discoveries by universities and research hospitals such as Memorial Sloan Kettering Center will never reach patients and consumers."

But the court's more liberal justices defended the ruling even if it was based on what Kagan called "naive economics."