PHOENIX β In a epic battle of comic-book treatment, a Tucson attorney has lost his legal fight with Marvel Comics over the rights to a Spider-Man web blaster.
In a 6-3 ruling this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected arguments by Stephen Kimble that his agreement with the comic book giant for ongoing royalties should overrule a 51-year-old precedent about when patents expire. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, said the right of free access by the public to ideas trumps such agreements.
"Patents endow their holders with certain superpowers, but only for a limited time,β Kagan wrote. "While a patent lasts, the patentee possess exclusive rights.β
But Kagan said those laws β and the 20 year-limit on patents β were designed by Congress to striking "a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring public access to discoveries.β
And she and the majority were not willing to overturn a 1964 high court ruling in a similar case which said that "free accessβ to ideas trumps any other agreement.
Kimble said in an earlier Star news story that the idea came about because "I had a kid who was not a real big fan of reading.β But the child, Kane, loved Spider-Man comics and the two read them together before bed.
That led to a discussion of whether Kimble could come up with a toy that would allow a child to play at Spider-Man. "We eventually came up with a workable plan. And we had it patented.β
The toy has a trigger attached to a valve in the palm of the glove. That valve was attached to a flexible line leading to a can of foam that could be strapped to the user's wrist or waist. Press the trigger and a string of foam shot out.
Later that year, Kimble met with an executive of Toy Biz Inc., the company that had the right to market Marvel toys, to pitch the idea. Kimble said the executive told him Marvel would compensate him if it ever decided to use any of his ideas. But the company later said it was not interested.
In 1995, however, Marvel began manufacturing a similar toy called the "Web Blaster,β contending it had come up with the idea independently. Kimble subsequently sued.
A federal judge threw out a claim of patent infringement. But a jury concluded Marvel had breached an oral contract with Kimble, awarding him 3.5 percent of past, present and future product sales.
In 2002 they settled out of court, with Marvel purchasing the patent, providing $516,000 immediately and 3 percent of sales that would infringe on the patent.
A subsequent squabble over royalties on variations of the toy brought the case back to federal court. That resulted in a trial judge ruling that the deal Kimble signed included his patent rights. And that meant the royalties had to end when the patent expired.
It was that point about patent rights that led to today's high court ruling.
Kagan said the 1964 case stated clearly that patent laws clearly prevent the person who owns it from getting royalties after 20 years.
