In the case Lowe Brothers Co. v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court ruled on whether a patent infringement claim could be brought against a company that had not directly used or sold the patented invention, but rather facilitated its use by others. The plaintiff was Lowe Brothers Company, which held patents for certain types of paint and varnish removers. They claimed that their patents were infringed upon by another company who provided customers with instructions on how to make similar products using common household ingredients. The court found in favor of the defendant, ruling that providing information about how to create an item does not constitute direct infringement of a patent for said item. This decision established important precedent regarding indirect patent infringement and clarified what constitutes "use" under U.S Patent Law.

In the dissenting opinion for Lowe Brothers Co. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(e) of the Clayton Act was too broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The dissenting justices believed that this section should only apply in cases where a seller discriminates between purchasers by offering services or facilities connected with resale to some buyers but not others, thereby causing competitive harm. They disagreed with applying this provision when sellers offer promotional services or facilities to all their customers on proportionally equal terms, as they felt such practices do not create an unfair advantage nor cause any anti-competitive effects. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential negative implications for businesses if every instance of providing promotional assistance were deemed illegal under antitrust laws unless offered equally to all customers regardless of their differing needs and circumstances.