In the case of United States of America v. Union Manufacturing Company in 1915, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties. The Union Manufacturing Company held patents for certain types of machinery used in making tin cans, which they leased to other companies along with charging them royalties on each can produced using their machines. The U.S government sued under antitrust laws claiming that this practice was monopolistic and restrained trade by limiting competition among can manufacturers. The court ruled in favor of the Union Manufacturing Company stating that it had not violated any antitrust laws as its practices were within its patent rights granted by Congress. It further stated that these rights included deciding how their patented inventions could be used and who could use them including setting terms such as leasing equipment or charging royalties per product made using their invention. This ruling affirmed the right of patent holders to control how their inventions are utilized even if it may limit competition, provided they do not abuse these privileges or engage in unfair business practices outside what is allowed under existing law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Union Manufacturing Company argued that the majority's interpretation of patent law was overly broad and could potentially stifle innovation. The dissenting justices believed that the company's use of a patented process to create a different product did not constitute infringement, as it was an entirely new application rather than a direct copy or imitation. They contended that such uses should be considered "fair use" under patent law, allowing for further development and improvement upon existing technologies without fear of legal repercussions. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential monopolies forming if companies were able to control all possible applications of their patents, which would ultimately harm competition and consumer choice in the market.