In the case of Berlin Mills Company v. Procter & Gamble Company in 1920, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent infringement. The Berlin Mills Company had patented a process for producing lard substitute from vegetable oils and claimed that Procter & Gamble was infringing upon their patent with their product Crisco. However, the court found that while both companies used similar processes to create their products, there were significant differences in terms of ingredients and methods used which made them distinct from each other. Therefore, it was determined that Procter & Gamble did not infringe upon Berlin Mill's patent rights as they were not using or copying its specific patented process exactly as described in its claims.

The dissenting opinion in the Berlin Mills Company v. Procter & Gamble Company case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially lead to unfair business practices. The dissent emphasized that a company should not be allowed to use its dominant position in one market to gain an advantage in another, as this would stifle competition and harm consumers. They believed that such behavior constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, regardless of whether it resulted from contracts or agreements between companies or from unilateral actions by a single company. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "intent" within antitrust law context, arguing that intent should not be considered irrelevant when determining if a practice is anti-competitive.