The United States v. Univis Lens Co., Inc. case in 1941 revolved around the issue of patent misuse and price fixing. The Univis Lens Company held patents for lens finishing blanks, which were sold to wholesalers and retailers who would then grind and polish them into prescription eyeglasses. The company set a minimum price at each level of sale, from wholesaler to retailer to consumer, effectively controlling the final retail price of glasses made with their lenses - an act that was considered as violation under antitrust laws by the U.S government. In its defense, Univis argued that it had a right to control sales because its patented invention wasn't fully realized until after those sales occurred (i.e., when they were ground into finished lenses). However, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that once an article is sold – even if it's not yet in its final form – all patent rights are exhausted; hence any attempt at controlling subsequent use or resale constitutes "patent misuse". This ruling significantly limited how much control patent holders could exert over their products post-sale.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Univis Lens Co., Inc., Justice Owen Roberts disagreed with the majority's interpretation of patent law and its application to this case. He argued that a patent holder has the right to control not only the production but also any subsequent sale or use of their patented product, as long as it does not extend beyond the scope of their monopoly rights granted by Congress. In his view, Univis Lens Company was within its rights to set price conditions on sales made by those who purchased lens blanks from them because they were merely exercising their lawful monopoly over a unique invention. The fact that these purchasers then finished grinding and polishing these lens blanks into eyeglasses did not constitute an illegal extension of Univis' patent rights since finishing operations didn't create new articles outside those covered in patents held by Univis.