In the case of Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 1979, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights and licensing agreements between two major corporations. The plaintiff, Curtiss-Wright Corporation, had licensed certain patents to General Electric Company (GE) under an agreement that GE would not challenge their validity. However, when GE was sued for patent infringement by another company, it defended itself by claiming that the patents were invalid - effectively breaching its contract with Curtiss-Wright. The Supreme Court held in favor of Curtiss-Wright Corp., ruling that a licensee cannot challenge the validity of a licensor's patent while still enjoying benefits from it under license agreement terms; this is known as "licensee estoppel". This decision reinforced contractual obligations and upheld respect for intellectual property rights within business transactions.

In the dissenting opinion for Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of antitrust laws and their application to this case. He argued that the Sherman Act should not be applied in a way that discourages or penalizes companies from entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, especially when such agreements can have pro-competitive effects by encouraging investment and innovation. Furthermore, he contended that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Curtiss-Wright's exclusive contract with GE had an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market sector - namely, aircraft engines for large commercial jets. In his view, it was wrong to assume harm simply because other potential competitors were excluded; actual proof of anti-competitive impact should be required.