In the case of Pick Manufacturing Co. v. General Motors Corp., the plaintiff, Pick Manufacturing Company, alleged that General Motors Corporation and others had conspired to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Act. The complaint was based on a series of transactions involving patents for automobile parts which resulted in GM acquiring control over these patents. However, the Supreme Court held that there was no evidence showing any intent or actual effect to restrain trade or establish a monopoly by GM's actions. It found that merely obtaining patent rights does not constitute an illegal restraint of trade unless it is accompanied by unlawful conduct aimed at monopolizing an industry sector.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pick Manufacturing Co. v. General Motors Corp et al., 1936, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing Pick's patent infringement claim was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were factual disputes about whether General Motors had infringed on Pick's patented design for an automobile part, which should have been resolved by a jury rather than summarily dismissed by the judge at trial. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes “prior use” under patent law and believed that this issue warranted further examination as well. In their view, these unresolved issues meant that summary judgment was inappropriate and they would have remanded the case back to district court for further proceedings.