In the 1930 case Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a patent holder cannot extend its monopoly by stipulating that buyers use only its own supplies in conjunction with the patented product. The case involved a company which held patents for insulated containers used to transport ice cream and dry ice, and required customers to purchase their dry ice exclusively from them as part of their sales contracts. This was challenged on grounds it violated antitrust laws by unlawfully extending patent rights beyond what is granted under law - essentially creating an illegal tying arrangement (wherein use of one product is tied to purchase of another). The court agreed, stating that such restrictions were not within the scope of any legitimate patent claim and thus constituted misuse.

In the dissenting opinion for Carbice Corporation of America v. American Patents Development Corporation, it was argued that the majority's decision undermined patent rights and would discourage innovation. The dissenting justices believed that a patent holder should have the right to control not only how their invention is used but also how it is sold. They contended that by allowing others to use patented technology without permission or compensation, inventors would be less likely to invest time and resources into developing new technologies. This could potentially stifle technological progress and harm economic growth in the long run. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "patent misuse," arguing instead that such restrictions should apply only when a patentee uses its monopoly power in ways unrelated to exploitation of its own invention.