The U.S. Supreme Court case Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., et al., 1976, revolved around an antitrust dispute between two competing vending machine manufacturers - The Vendo Company and Lektro-Vend Corporation. The issue at hand was whether federal courts could stay proceedings in a state court action where the claim involved alleged violations of federal antitrust laws. In this case, Vendo had initially sued Lektro-Vend in Illinois state court for patent infringement and unfair competition; subsequently, Lektro-Vend filed a counterclaim alleging that Vendo's lawsuit was part of an attempt to monopolize the market which violated federal antitrust laws. Lekto-Vend then sought to have the entire litigation moved to Federal District Court under Section 1441(c) of Title 28 United States Code (U.S.C.), but their request was denied by both district and appellate courts on grounds that only "separate and independent" claims can be removed from state jurisdiction under this statute. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it upheld these decisions with a majority ruling stating that since all claims were interrelated rather than separate or independent as required by law for removal purposes, they should remain within state jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, argued that federal courts should not abstain from deciding cases involving antitrust issues simply because a similar case is pending in state court. The majority's decision to allow such abstention could potentially undermine the effectiveness of federal antitrust laws and policies designed to maintain competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices. Furthermore, they contended that allowing state courts exclusive jurisdiction over these matters would create inconsistencies in how antitrust laws are interpreted and applied across different states - something Congress sought to avoid when it enacted comprehensive federal legislation on this issue.