Kimble v. Marvel: What Does It Mean for Patent Licensing, Patent Misuse, and Antitrust?

ABA Antitrust Teleconference

09 Jul 2015 12:00 p.m. - 01:15 p.m. EDT

In Kimble v. Marvel, the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its oft-criticized holding in Brulotte v. Thys Co. that charging post-expiration patent royalties is per se misuse.  In doing so, the Court distinguished between patent and antitrust precedent, holding that interpretations of the Patent Act enjoy a “superpowered form of stare decisis.”  What does Kimble mean for patent licensing?  Will it change the lower court tendency to import antitrust principles into the patent misuse doctrine?  Will Kimble have spillover effects into other areas of patent law?

Please join the ABA Antitrust Section, Intellectual Property Committee for this teleconference to hear from counsel who argued the case before the Supreme Court as well as color commentary from two leading experts.


  • Roman Melnik
    Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (counsel for petitioners)
  • Thomas Saunders
    Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (counsel for respondent)
  • Joanna Tsai
    Charles River Associates
  • Sean Gates
    Partner, Morrison & Foerster LLP



Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.