In 1990, Steven Kimble invented the “Web Blaster,” a Spider-Man toy designed to replicate the superhero’s signature ability to shoot spider webs from his wrists (the Raimi movies) or from devices attached to his wrist (the correct way). Ever since this time, Kimble has been in several litigations with Marvel regarding the patent rights to the “Web Blaster”. Now, the Supreme Court has finally put an end to the dispute.

Kimble patented his invention and pitched it to Marvel but Marvel decided to produce its own version of Kimble’s toy, without compensating Kimble or giving him credit, sparking a conflict that would go on for years. The parties battled it out in court, and in 2001, they finally reached a settlement agreement which provided for the sale of the patent to Marvel for a lump sum of about $500,000 plus royalties of 3%. Over the years, Marvel has dished out over $6 million in royalties to Kimble pursuant to the agreement.

But the war was far from over. In 2006, Marvel licensed the production of the “Web Blaster” to Hasbro inciting further conflict with Kimble over royalty payments and leading Kimble to file another suit against Marvel for breach of contract under the 2001 agreement. Meanwhile, Kimble’s patent expired and the Arizona district court dismissed the case based on Brulotte v. Thys Co., a prior Supreme Court decision.

In Brulotte v. Thys Co., the parties similarly entered into an agreement providing for the payment of royalties continuing after the patent’s expiration. The Supreme Court held that patent law trumps contract law stating “that a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress deliberately limited the life of a patent, and allowing for the exploitation of patents for a longer period of time through contract would defeat Congress’s intent.

In July 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Court noted that while it might not agree with the reasoning in Brulotte, it is obligated to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in the interest of judicial consistency. It further pointed out that had the 2001 agreement distinguished between patent rights and non-patent rights, the result could have been different. For example, if the agreement provided for two different payments, one for the non-patent rights and another for the patent rights, those non-patent royalties could have continued.

Kimble argued to the Supreme Court that the 50 year old Brulotte ruling was outdated and anti-competitive. Today, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held for Marvel and thus keeping the Brulotte rule in effect. Judge Kagan writing for the majority stated that there was no “special justification” for departing from the long held rule. In doing so, Judge Kagan echoed the sentiments of the comics by stating “[i]n this world, with great power there must also come — great responsibility”; so cheers to the Judge (or her clerks) for reading their comic books. So it is back to the patent drawing board for Kimble.