In the case of Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company v. Worst, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Worst, upholding a lower court's decision that he was not liable for patent infringement as claimed by Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company. The plaintiff company had accused Worst of infringing on their patented process for producing ready-mixed paint by using and selling a similar product without their permission. However, upon examination, it was found that the defendant’s method differed significantly from the one described in the plaintiff's patent claim; hence there was no direct infringement involved. Furthermore, it was determined that any similarities between both products were due to them being part of public domain knowledge prior to Heath & Milligan's patent application - thus they could not be considered proprietary or exclusive to their invention.

In the dissenting opinion for Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company v. Worst, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions of the court and violated principles of fairness. He contended that a patentee should not be allowed to extend their monopoly beyond what is granted by law through contracts or licenses. In this case, he believed that Heath & Milligan had attempted to do so by requiring purchasers of its patented product to only use it in conjunction with another unpatented product they manufactured. This condition, according to Justice Harlan, constituted an unlawful restraint on trade as it forced consumers into buying two products when they may have only wanted one. Furthermore, he asserted that such conditions were contrary to public policy as they stifled competition and innovation while also potentially leading to higher prices for consumers.