In the United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Singer had violated antitrust laws by conspiring with its British and Canadian counterparts to monopolize markets in Japan, Australia, Canada and other countries. The case revolved around a patent-sharing agreement between these companies which effectively divided up international sewing machine markets among themselves. This was found to be an illegal restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it prevented competition in those foreign markets from American exporters not party to their agreement. The court rejected Singer's argument that such agreements were necessary for effective patent enforcement abroad or that they fell within any implied exception for patents under antitrust law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., argued that the majority's decision to find Singer guilty of violating antitrust laws was based on a misinterpretation of those laws. The dissenters believed that, rather than engaging in illegal monopolistic practices, Singer had simply been acting within its rights as a patent holder to exclude others from using its patented technology without permission or compensation. They contended that this right is fundamental to the concept of patents and should not be considered an antitrust violation unless it is abused in some way - something they did not believe had occurred in this case. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that Singer's licensing agreements were inherently anti-competitive, arguing instead that such agreements can often promote competition by allowing multiple companies access to new technologies.