In the 1945 case of Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., Bruce's Juices sued American Can for allegedly violating antitrust laws by engaging in price discrimination and monopolistic practices. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had sold cans at lower prices to competitors than it did to them, which they argued was a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act prohibiting such discriminatory pricing. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Can Co., stating that there was no evidence proving that these actions had lessened competition or created a monopoly within their industry as required under this act for an offense to be established. Therefore, while acknowledging some degree of price differentiation between customers existed, without proof showing harm done towards competition itself or creation of monopoly power due to these practices; it could not be considered illegal under existing law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation and application of patent law principles. The dissent contended that Bruce’s Juices should not be held liable for infringing upon American Can Co.'s patents because these patents were invalid to begin with. They believed that the patented inventions lacked novelty and inventiveness, two key requirements for a valid patent under U.S law at the time. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "contributory infringement," arguing it was an overly broad interpretation which could stifle competition and innovation by unfairly penalizing those who merely use or sell products made through potentially infringing processes without any knowledge or intent to violate patent rights.