In the 1946 case of Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Can Company, upholding a lower court decision that found no violation of antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Bruce's Juices, alleged that American Can had engaged in price discrimination by selling cans at different prices to various customers without any cost justification for doing so and thus violated the Robinson-Patman Act (an amendment to Clayton Antitrust Act). However, the Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove this claim as it could not be demonstrated conclusively whether or not differences in costs justified varying prices charged by American Can Company. Furthermore, it was noted that even if such discriminatory pricing existed; unless it substantially lessened competition or tended towards creating monopoly power which harms public interest - it would not constitute an infringement under said act.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., argued that the majority decision failed to consider important aspects of patent law and its implications on business practices. The dissent emphasized that a company should not be allowed to extend its monopoly over an invention beyond the expiration date of its patent by tying it with unpatented products through contractual agreements, as this would undermine competition and stifle innovation. It was also pointed out that such arrangements could potentially lead to abuse where a company might attempt to control markets for goods unrelated to their patented inventions, which is contrary to public interest and policy goals underlying patent laws.