United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc.
| United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 10–11, 1952 Decided February 4, 1952 | |
| Full case name | United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc. |
| Citations | 342 U.S. 371 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Patents give no protection from the prohibitions of the Sherman Act when the patent licensing agreements are used to restrain interstate commerce and fix prices of goods shipped in commerce. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Reed, joined by Vinson, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Burton, Minton |
| Dissent | None |
| Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952), is a 1952 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a claim of conspiracy to fix uniform minimum prices and to eliminate competition throughout substantially all of the wrinkle finish industry of the United States by means of patent license agreements was, if proved, a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. That one of the defendants, a patent-holding company, abstained from manufacturing activities, did not ship goods in commerce, and engaged solely in patent licensing did not insulate its activity from § 1. Making these license contracts for the purpose of regulating distribution and fixing prices of commodities in interstate commerce is subject to the Sherman Act, even though the isolated act of contracting for the licenses occurs within a single state. Patents give no protection from the prohibitions of the Sherman Act when the patent licensing agreements are used to restrain interstate commerce and fix prices of goods shipped in commerce.