![](\"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_ITZ0u-U-yck\/TODYJ_ye2gI\/AAAAAAAAAIA\/lhtR1J23nMA\/s1600\/shotweb.jpg\")
<\/p>\nOr at least, one of his toys is.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to The Hollywood Reporter<\/i><\/a>, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Stephen Kimble, who, in 1990, patented an idea for a Web Blaster toy that would spray foam by means of a trigger in the palm. In other words, this thing<\/a>. He took the idea to Marvel, who passed, but when another company began making the same thing for them, he sued for patent infringement.<\/p>\n Marvel settled in 2001 - they purchased the patent rights and gave him 3% of the royalties until the patent expired in 2010.<\/p>\n Kimble sued again in 2006, when Hasbro started making the things. He apparently didn't like the fact that they were being sold with masks and other roleplay gear. Marvel counter-sued, and the case was finally settled in 2013. Marvel won, thanks to Brulotte v. Thys Co.<\/i><\/a>, a case that forbids patent holders from collecting royalties after the patent has expired. Now Kimble wants SCOTUS to overturn that 1964 decision, claiming it's the \"product of a bygone era.\"<\/p>\n That's what makes this interesting: the court agreeing to hear this case isn't really about Spider-Man, it's about whether the march of time requires re-examination of past decisions. In other words, just because something is settled once, it doesn't mean it's settled for all time.<\/p>\n