Core Legal Principle: The Supreme Court has held that while patent owners may refuse to license their inventions, they cannot use licensing agreements to improperly expand their patent monopoly[1]. Most notably, in Brulotte v. Thes, the Court determined that "a patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se"—meaning royalty payments explicitly tied to post-expiration use are unenforceable[1].
Key Doctrine: The Court has clarified that analyzing whether a licensing provision violates this rule is "simplicity itself to apply": a court need only ask whether a licensing agreement provides royalties for post-expiration use of a patent[1]. However, the Brulotte framework includes exceptions—such as when payments are deferred (rather than explicitly for post-expiration use), involve unpatented goods, or when some patents on a licensed item have not yet expired[1].
Why It's Timely: This February 2026 article by Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks appears designed to educate practitioners on patent licensing risks in light of established precedent, not to announce a new ruling or development. The piece serves as practical guidance for patent owners and licensees navigating the boundary between lawful patent protection and unlawful monopoly extension through licensing terms.