In Kimble v. Marvel Entm’t, LLC, No. 13-720 (June 22, 2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its 1964 holding in Brulotte v. Thys Co. that an agreement to pay patent royalties for sales made after the patent expires is per se unenforceable. The plaintiff, Marvel, purchased a patent for a web- shooting toy from Kimble. In exchange, Marvel agreed to pay a lump-sum fee plus a 3% royalty on future sales of its web-shooting toy. The parties’ agreement did not set an end-date for royalty payments. After later learning of Brulotte, Marvel sought judgment that it was not required to pay royalties on sales occurring after the patent expired. Kimble argued that Brulotte should be overruled and that such royalties should be analyzed on a case-by- case basis, citing a substantial body of commentary disagreeing with Brulotte.While acknowledging the criticism of Brulotte, the Court held that it was bound to follow its ruling. Under stare decisis principles, there must be “special justification” to overrule precedent, especially where, as here, the precedent interprets a statute—being amenable to change through statutory correction—and concerns contract and property rights—for which parties particularly rely on precedent to frame their actions. The usual justifications for overruling precedent—the erosion of the precedent’s underpinnings or evidence that the precedent is unworkable—did not apply. Since Brulotte, courts continued to generally view postpatent restrictions as improper, and Brulotte’s rule was simple to follow. Furthermore, while Brulotte may be wrong about the perceived anti-competitive effects of post-expiration royalties and may actually inhibit certain pro-competitive contractual arrangements, being wrong on the merits does not justify departure from stare decisis. Congress, rather than the courts, has the power to change laws in view of public policy.