Petitioner's brief and amicus briefs filed in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises

Readers may recall that the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, to decide whether or not to overrule Brulotte v. Thys, a 1964 decision holding that postexpiration patent royalties are per se unlawful.  (For previous blog posts on the matter, see here, here and here.)  The petitioner's brief has now been filed and is available here.  The Center for Intellectual Property Research of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law has filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner (which I joined), and it is available here.  Several other amicus briefs have been filed, expressing a variety of views.  Other briefs in support of petitioners are from Biotime, Inc.; Intellectual Property Owners Association; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center et al;  NYIPLA; and the University of Massachusetts Biologic Labs. In support of neither party are the briefs filed by AIPLA (which however argues against overruling Brulotte); the Bar of the City of New York (but arguing in favor of overruling); Professor Robin Feldman et al. (arguing for modification of the Brulotte standard); the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (arguing in favor of overruling); and the Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc. (arguing for modification of the current application of the rule).  I understand that the Solicitor General's brief and at least one other amicus brief supporting the respondents' position will be forthcoming in March.