In the case of Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Company et al., 1920, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and antitrust laws in relation to motion picture films. The plaintiff, Sampliner, was an independent film exhibitor who sued the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC), alleging that they were monopolizing trade by enforcing their patents on raw film stock and projectors excessively. MPPC had agreements with manufacturers which restricted them from selling equipment or supplies to unlicensed operators like Sampliner. The court ruled against MPPC stating that such restrictive practices violated Sherman Antitrust Act as it restrained free competition in commerce among states. It held that while patent owners have exclusive rights to use their inventions, these rights do not extend so far as to allow them control over business activities where patented items are used after sale.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Company argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider the broader implications for patent law and business practices. The dissenting justices believed that by ruling against Motion Picture Patents Company, they were undermining the rights of patent holders and discouraging innovation. They contended that if a company could not control how its patented products were used after sale, then there would be little incentive for companies to invest in research and development or create new technologies. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "use" within patent law context, arguing instead that restrictions on use should be allowed as long as they do not extend beyond what is covered by the patent itself.