The United States Supreme Court case, United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., et al., 1951 revolved around a patent dispute. The government filed an antitrust suit against New Wrinkle Inc and other companies alleging that they conspired to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Act by pooling their patents related to wrinkle finishes (a type of paint finish). The defendants argued that since they had valid patents, they were immune from antitrust liability. However, the court ruled in favor of the government stating that even though patent holders have exclusive rights over their inventions, these rights do not extend to creating a monopoly which restricts competition or controls prices beyond what is necessary for protection under patent law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that merely combined existing elements without creating something new or different went against established principles of patent law. The dissent contended that this ruling would lead to an overextension of patent protection and stifle innovation by granting monopolies on simple combinations of known techniques or devices. They believed this could potentially discourage others from improving upon these combinations due to fear of infringement lawsuits. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the potential negative impact on competition and consumer welfare if such broad patents were allowed to stand.