{"id":2251,"date":"2015-06-25T12:06:00","date_gmt":"2015-06-25T17:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/63.247.142.118\/?p=2251"},"modified":"2023-03-08T15:51:31","modified_gmt":"2023-03-08T21:51:31","slug":"dunlap-codding-director-jordan-a-sigale-quoted-in-articles-analyzing-the-u-s-supreme-courts-ruling-in-kimble-v-marvel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/dunlap-codding-director-jordan-a-sigale-quoted-in-articles-analyzing-the-u-s-supreme-courts-ruling-in-kimble-v-marvel\/","title":{"rendered":"Dunlap Codding Director Jordan A. Sigale Quoted in Articles Analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling in Kimble v. Marvel"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><a href=\"\/team\/jordan-sigale\/\">Jordan A. Sigale<\/a>\u00a0was quoted in Donna Young\u2019s recent article in Scrip Intelligence, \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scripintelligence.com\/home\/Patent-superpowers-time-limits-upheld-biopharma-implications-359072\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\">Patent \u2018superpowers\u2019 time limits upheld:\u00a0 Biopharma implications<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Young wrote that\u00a0<em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/14pdf\/13-720_jiel.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\">Kimble v. Marvel\u00a0<\/a><\/em>\u00a0\u201cmay help patent holders and those that enter into licensing rights deals, including biopharmaceutical makers, better understand and be more aware of a nearly half-century old case law rule.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The U.S. Supreme Court, in a split decision, declined to overturn the 1964 standard set in&nbsp;<em><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/379\/29\/case.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\">Brulotte v. Thys<\/a>,&nbsp;<\/em>which ruled that patent holders cannot demand royalties for the use of their inventions after the patent terms have expired.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sigale said, \u201cBig biopharmaceutical firms are well-represented in patent law and intellectual property matters, so they already know their way around the&nbsp;<em>Brulotte&nbsp;<\/em>rule\u2026.If anything, the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in the&nbsp;<em>Marvel<\/em>&nbsp;case makes it clearer the&nbsp;<em>Brulotte&nbsp;<\/em>rule is narrow and that there are ways to draft around it\u2026.But for those who are unsophisticated about&nbsp;<em>Brulotte,&nbsp;<\/em>the opinion is unfortunate\u2026.It would be much better to knock out this rule.&nbsp; It doesn\u2019t make economic sense\u2026and any standard that gives the advantage to those who can afford the best legal representation is bad for society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&nbsp;Ryan Davis, writing for<a href=\"file:\/\/\/C:\/Users\/lindah\/Documents\/New%20Website%20Content\/New%20folder\/Law360%20Article%20Quoting%20Jordan%20Sigale%20on%20Kimble%20v.%20Marvel.pdf\">&nbsp;Law360<\/a>, on June 22, 2015, also quoted Sigale.&nbsp; Davis wrote, \u201cThe Kimble case arose because neither party knew about the [Brulotte] rule when Marvel agreed to license Kimble\u2019s patent for use in a Spider-Man Web Blaster toy in perpetuity.\u201d&nbsp; Sigale was quoted as saying, \u201cThe decision explains that the Brulotte rule really is as narrow as we thought it was\u2026.If you make it clear there are no royalties for the patent after it expires, you can do anything you want.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cSigale said it was helpful that the court expressly gave its blessing to later payments of royalties accrued during the life of the patent,\u201d said Davis.&nbsp; Sigale said, \u201cBefore today, people were a little nervous that the court would say that\u2019s just putting form over substance.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jordan A. Sigale\u00a0was quoted in Donna Young\u2019s recent article in Scrip Intelligence, \u201cPatent \u2018superpowers\u2019 time limits upheld:\u00a0 Biopharma implications.\u201d\u00a0 Young wrote that\u00a0Kimble v. Marvel\u00a0\u00a0\u201cmay help patent holders and those that enter into licensing rights deals, including biopharmaceutical makers, better understand and be more aware of a nearly half-century old case law rule.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 The U.S. Supreme [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_mo_disable_npp":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[91],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2251"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2251"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2251\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5087,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2251\/revisions\/5087"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2251"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}