In the case of Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morton Salt, stating that a patent holder cannot use its control over a patented item to maintain a monopoly on an unpatented item used with it. The dispute arose when G.S. Suppiger held patents for both salt tablets and machines that inserted these tablets into cans as part of food preservation process, but only leased their machines under condition lessees would also purchase their salt tablets exclusively from them - effectively monopolizing sale of such tablets despite not having exclusive rights to produce or sell them outside this arrangement. This was deemed by court as misuse of patent rights and thus they were unenforceable until misuse had been purged.

In the dissenting opinion for Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., Justice Roberts disagreed with the majority's decision to deny enforcement of a patent due to misuse, arguing that it was an overreach of judicial power and contrary to existing law at that time. He contended that there were no legal grounds or precedents supporting such denial based on policy considerations alone, without any statutory basis in patent laws enacted by Congress. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been misuse of a patented item (in this case, salt tablets), it did not necessarily invalidate the entire patent or prevent its enforcement against infringers who used it without authorization from the owner - unless such unauthorized use also involved similar misuse as alleged against the owner itself.