BRULOTTE'S WEB

Herbert Hovenkamp

Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2015, vol. 11, issue 3, 527-548

Abstract: In 2015 the Supreme Court held in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment that stare decisis required adherence to the half-century-old, much criticized rule in Brulotte v. Thys. Justice Douglas's Brulotte opinion concluded that license agreements requiring royalties measured by use of a patent after its expiration are unenforceable per se. The court need not inquire into market power, anticompetitive effects, or effects on innovation, and it may not accept any defense. In declining to overrule Brulotte, the Kimble Court observed two things: First, reliance interests had developed around the Brulotte decision and most people had learned to live with it. Second, Congress had had many opportunities to overrule the decision but had resisted every invitation to do so. This article explores some of the reasons why Brulotte was a poor decision as either patent or competition policy, and considers whether stare decisis was a sufficiently weighty reason for adhering to it.

JEL-codes: L24 O34 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhv025 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:11:y:2015:i:3:p:527-548.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Competition Law and Economics is currently edited by Nicholas Economides, Amelia Fletcher, Michal Gal, Damien Geradin, Ioannis Lianos and Tommaso Valletti

More articles in Journal of Competition Law and Economics from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().