In the 1907 case of Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Continental, upholding their right to not use a patent while also preventing others from using it. The Eastern Paper Bag Company had sued on grounds that Continental was maintaining a monopoly by purchasing and holding patents without utilizing them, thereby stifering competition. However, the court held that non-use alone did not invalidate a patent or constitute an abuse of rights under antitrust laws; rather, it was within the owner's prerogative whether or not to use its own property (the patent). This ruling established important precedent for intellectual property law and anti-trust legislation in America.

In the dissenting opinion for Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that a patent holder should not be able to suppress competition by refusing to use their own patented invention while also preventing others from using it. He contended that such behavior contradicts the purpose of patents, which is to encourage innovation and progress in society through public disclosure of new inventions in exchange for temporary monopolies on those inventions. By allowing patent holders to stifle competition without utilizing their patents, he believed this would discourage technological advancement rather than promoting it as intended by the patent system.