A PYMNTS Company

US: Top court backs Marvel in Spider-Man toy dispute

By  |  June 23, 2015

Invoking a famous line from Spider-Man lore about great power coming with great responsibility, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in favor of Marvel Entertainment LLC in a patent dispute over a toy that allows users, like the superhero, to shoot webs from the palms of their hands.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    Subscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Justice Elena Kagan cited the line in explaining why the court, in a 6-3 ruling, declined to overrule a 51-year-old legal precedent concerning patent royalties, rejecting a bid for continued payments sought by the toy’s inventor.

    The court backed Walt Disney Co’s Marvel Entertainment in its legal fight with Stephen Kimble and an associate, Robert Grabb, over royalties on the web-shooting toy called the Spider-Man Web Blaster.

    “Marvel is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which upholds the court’s legal precedent from half a century ago,” company spokesman David Jefferson said.

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source

    Although the court can overturn its own precedents, this case did not warrant it, Kagan said.

    “What we can decide, we can undecide,” Kagan wrote, but, she added, “we should exercise that authority sparingly.”

    Kimble had asked the court to overrule the precedent, which said royalty payments generally do not need to be made after a patent has expired as is the case with the Spider-Man Web Blaster. Marvel, which has paid Kimble more than $6 million over the years to use the patent in the toy, had argued that the precedent set in a 1964 Supreme Court ruling should stand.

    Full content: The Huffington Post

    Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.