A patent is an exclusive right granted to the creator of an invention. Under U.S. law, a patent owner possesses that right for twenty years. The owner can allow another party to make and market a product based on the invention in exchange for a payment of royalties on the sales. According to the United States Supreme Court in a case known as the Brulotte decision, a contract to pay royalties after a patent has expired is unenforceable. Stephen Kimble owned the patent to a toy glove that could shoot foam intended to look like the web of Marvel Comics’

Spider-Man. Kimble agreed to allow Marvel Entertainment, LLC, to sell its version of the toy. Marvel agreed to pay Kimble a royalty of 3 percent on the sales. Their contract did not specify an end date. After the patent expired, Marvel sued to stop the payments. What is the doctrine of stare decisis? What are the arguments for and against applying it in this case? Discuss.