In the Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United States case of 1932, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over patent rights and royalties between Bemis Brothers Bag Company and the U.S government during World War I. The government had used certain patented inventions owned by Bemis without their permission, arguing that it was justified under its war powers to do so without paying any compensation or royalties for their use in wartime production efforts. However, the court disagreed with this argument and held that while Congress did have broad powers during times of war, these did not extend to using private property (in this case patents) without just compensation as required by Fifth Amendment protections against taking private property for public use without fair payment.

In the dissenting opinion for Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a patent licensing agreement violated antitrust laws because it included price-fixing provisions and restrictions on competition among licensees. He argued that such agreements were not inherently illegal, as they could be necessary to protect the value of patents and encourage innovation. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence in this case showing actual harm to competition or consumers from these practices; rather, they seemed designed primarily to prevent destructive price wars among licensees which would undermine their ability to recoup their investments in new technologies.