In the case of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of General Electric (GE). The dispute arose when GE sued Wabash Appliance for patent infringement on a tungsten filament light bulb that GE held exclusive rights to manufacture and sell under its patent license agreement with Westinghouse Lamp Company. However, Wabash argued that this arrangement was an illegal restraint of trade under antitrust laws as it limited competition by setting prices and controlling distribution channels. The court disagreed with Wabash's argument stating that a patent owner has the right to decide how their invention is used including granting licenses on terms they see fit unless there are legal restrictions against such arrangements or if they involve conduct which violates statutory law.

In the dissenting opinion for General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., Justice Stone argued that the patent holder's control over its product should end once it has been sold, and any attempt to extend this control constitutes a misuse of patents. He believed that GE’s licensing agreement, which set minimum resale prices for patented lamps, was an unlawful extension of their patent rights into areas of commerce where they had no right to interfere. This practice allowed them to monopolize trade and fix prices in violation of antitrust laws. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that such agreements were necessary for protecting inventors' rights or encouraging innovation; instead, he saw them as harmful restraints on competition and consumer choice.