In B. F. Goodrich Co. v United States (1943), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a patentee who licenses another to manufacture its patented product cannot lawfully stipulate for royalties based on the licensee's sales of non-patented products used in conjunction with the patented one, unless it can be shown that such other products were parts of the invention claimed in the patent or necessary thereto. The case arose when B.F Goodrich Company sued United States Rubber Company and others for infringement of two patents relating to pneumatic tires and inner tubes designed for use therein, respectively. The court held that while a patentee may conditionally sell his patented device along with unpatented items without violating antitrust laws, he may not extend his monopoly by using licensing agreements to collect royalties from sales of unpatented goods.

In the dissenting opinion for B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on imported rubber products violated principles of international law and trade agreements between nations. The dissenting justices believed that such taxes should only be imposed if they are explicitly authorized by Congress, which was not the case here. They also expressed concern about potential retaliation from other countries in response to this unilateral imposition of tariffs, which could harm American businesses and consumers in turn through higher prices or reduced access to foreign goods and services.