In the case of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. United States in 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning patent rights and antitrust laws. The court held that an agreement between two companies to share patents was not inherently illegal under antitrust law unless it could be proven that such an agreement unreasonably restrained trade or tended towards monopoly. This decision came after Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., a manufacturer of brake linings for automobiles and other vehicles, sued the United States government alleging violation of its patent rights by another company with which it had previously agreed to exchange patents freely without any royalty payments involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Raybestos-Manhattan Inc., which found them guilty of patent misuse and anti-competitive practices, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support these allegations and felt that the company had not violated any antitrust laws by licensing its patented asbestos brake lining technology under certain conditions. They contended that such restrictions were necessary for protecting their intellectual property rights and ensuring fair competition in the market place. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of patent law principles as well as their application in this case.