In the case of United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., et al., 1956, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two gypsum companies over wallboard products. The plaintiff, United States Gypsum Company (USG), held patents for certain methods and compositions in producing gypsum wallboards and had licensed these to other manufacturers including defendant National Gypsum Company under specific conditions that included price-fixing provisions. When USG sued for infringement after some licensees sold unpatented products at prices below those fixed by their licenses, the defendants counterclaimed arguing that USG's licensing system violated antitrust laws as it constituted illegal price fixing. The court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that while patent owners have exclusive rights to their inventions, they cannot use this right to restrain competition beyond what is necessary to protect their invention or monopolize commerce unlawfully through restrictive licensing agreements such as price-fixing arrangements which are per se violations of Sherman Act.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found certain patent licensing agreements to be per se violations of antitrust laws, was incorrect and overly broad. The dissent contended that these licensing agreements should not automatically be considered illegal under antitrust law without considering their actual effects on competition. They believed this approach could potentially stifle innovation by discouraging companies from investing in research and development due to fear of potential legal consequences for how they choose to license their patents. Furthermore, they expressed concern over the lack of clear guidelines provided by the Court regarding what constitutes permissible conduct under antitrust laws when it comes to patent licensing practices.