词条 | Brulotte v. Thys Co. |
释义 |
|Litigants=Brulotte v. Thys Co. |ArgueDate=October 20 |ArgueYear=1964 |DecideDate=November 16 |DecideYear=1964 |FullName=Brulotte, et al. v. Thys Co. |USVol=379 |USPage=29 |ParallelCitations=85 S.Ct. 176; 13 L. Ed. 2d 99; 3 A.L.R.3d 761; 143 U.S.P.Q. 264 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=1962–1965 |Majority=Douglas |JoinMajority=Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg |Dissent=Harlan |LawsApplied= }}Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964),[1] was a 1964 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a contract calling for payment of patent royalties after the expiration of the licensed patent was misuse of the patent right and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, state contract law notwithstanding. The decision was widely subjected to academic criticism but the Supreme Court has rejected that criticism and reaffirmed the Brulotte decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC.[2] BackgroundThys owned patents on hop-picking machinery. He sold a machine to Brulotte, a farmer in Washington, for $3000 and granted him a license to use the machine for a minimum royalty of $500 for each hop-picking season or $3.33 per 200 pounds of hops harvested by the machine, whichever was greater. The license had no termination date. Of the seven patents covering the machine, the last expired by 1957. Brulotte failed to pay the royalties and Thys sued him for breach of contract in Washington State court.[3] The trial court rendered judgment for Thys and the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed.[4] The Supreme Court of Washington held that in the present case the period during which royalties were required, even though beyond the expiry of the patents, was only "a reasonable amount of time over which to spread the payments for the use of the patent[s]."[5] Ruling of Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court reversed (8-1) in an opinion written for the Court by Justice William O. Douglas. Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented. Majority opinionJustice Douglas began the majority opinion by citing precedents holding that patent "rights become public property once the 17-year period expires."[6] He then quoted Chief Justice Stone, speaking for the Court in Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Co.: . . . any attempted reservation or continuation in the patentee or those claiming under him of the patent monopoly, after the patent expires, whatever the legal device employed, runs counter to the policy and purpose of the patent laws.[7] The Court rejected the claim that the contract merely spread the payment for using the patent over a longer period. The payments were clearly proportioned to the extent of use after the patents expired: "The royalty payments due for the post-expiration period are by their terms for use during that period, and are not deferred payments for use during the pre-expiration period."[6] Thys "was using the licenses to project its monopoly beyond the patent period." Because the license made no distinction between the pre- and post-expiration period, the contracts were "on their face a bald attempt to exact the same terms and conditions for the period after the patents have expired as they do for the monopoly period," contrary to patent policy. That made them unenforceable.[8] The Court therefore ruled:
DissentJustice Harlan disagreed: " I think that more discriminating analysis than the Court has seen fit to give this case produces a different result."[10] In his analysis, what Thys did was no more objectionable than restrictions on the machine rather than the patented idea that it embodied. "In fact Thys sells both a machine and the use of an idea. The company should be free to restrict the use of its machine."[11] Subsequent developmentsReaffirmanceDespite criticism of Brulotte (see next section), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision in Kimble v. Marvel in 2015. CriticismThe decision was widely criticized by academics and economic theorists. In a subsequent opinion, 50 years later, nonetheless affirming Brulotte, the Supreme Court listed some of the criticism suggesting that the case should be overruled:[12]
Other criticism of Brulotte includes the following:
Other commentators, however, have rejected adoption of an antitrust lens for analysis of patent misuse:
References{{BBstyle}}1. ^{{ussc|name=Brulotte v. Thys Co.|volume=379|page=29|pin=|year=1964}}. {{usgovpd}} 2. ^{{ussc|name=Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC|volume=576|year=2015|docket=13-720}}. 3. ^379 U.S. at 29-30. 4. ^62 Wash. 2d 284, 382 P.2d 271 (1963). 5. ^62 Wash. 2d, at 291, 382 P. 2d, at 275. 6. ^1 379 U.S. at 31. 7. ^Scott, 326 U.S. 249, 256 (1946). 8. ^379 U.S. at 32. 9. ^379 U.S. at 32-34 10. ^379 U.S. at 34. 11. ^379 U.S. at 35. 12. ^Kimble v. Marvel, 561 U.S. —, - n.3 (2015). External links
| case = Brulotte v. Thys Co., ({{ussc|379|29|1964|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/29/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep379/usrep379029/usrep379029.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/20 5 : United States misuse law|United States patent case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court|1964 in United States case law |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。