Skip to main content

Patent royalties after expiration

Acorda Therapeutics v. Alkermes

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Acorda Therapeutics asked the Supreme Court to review its dispute with Alkermes over royalties paid after a licensed patent expired, arguing that federal patent law required their return and that an arbitrator wrongly limited repayment under New York’s Voluntary Payment Doctrine.
Who it affects
The denial ends Acorda's request for Supreme Court review, but the Court did not decide whether Alkermes had to return the royalties.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., Petitioner v. Alkermes PLC
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide those claims.

The dispute concerns whether royalties paid after a licensed patent expired had to be returned and whether New York's Voluntary Payment Doctrine could limit repayment.

Question presented

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that federal patent law, as construed in Brulotte v. Thys Co. and Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, does not require a patentee to disgorge royalties it collected after the licensed patent expired, and in permitting a state-law doctrine—New York’s Voluntary Payment Doctrine—to authorize the patentee’s retention of those royalties notwithstanding this Court’s categorical rule that all benefits from a patent must end when the patent expires—a rule that gives effect to Congress’s decision, under the Constitution’s “limited Times” power, to grant only a time-limited patent monopoly. In so ruling, the court of appeals expanded the period of invention exclusivity beyond the statutory grant of the patent. 2. Whether an arbitrator “manifestly disregards” governing federal law within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act when the arbitrator acknowledges federal law—here, Brulotte’s prohibition on post-expiration patent royalties—finds that all post-expiration payments were unlawful, and orders restitution as the remedy for a federal law violation, but then invokes conflicting state law to apply that rule to only part of the remedy.

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Oct 13, 2026 · Court records

More questions

3
What was Acorda's patent-law argument?
Acorda argued that federal patent law required Alkermes to return royalties collected after the licensed patent expired.
What did Acorda say the arbitrator got wrong?
Acorda argued the arbitrator could not find the payments unlawful and then use New York's Voluntary Payment Doctrine to limit how much Alkermes had to repay.
Did the denial favor Alkermes?
No. The Court refused review without deciding the claims or endorsing either side.

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis