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.