Lexplug logoLexplug

International Salt Co. v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
332 U.S. 392 (1947)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Tying the lease of a patented product to the required purchase of a separate, unpatented product is a per se violation of antitrust laws when a not insubstantial amount of commerce in the tied product is affected.


Facts:

  • International Salt Company is the country's largest producer of salt for industrial uses.
  • International Salt owns patents on two machines that use salt: the 'Lixator,' which dissolves rock salt into brine, and the 'Saltomat,' which injects salt tablets into canned goods.
  • The company leases these patented machines to industrial users.
  • The lease agreements for both machines contain a 'tying clause' requiring the lessees to purchase all salt and salt tablets used in the machines exclusively from International Salt.
  • At the time of the suit, International Salt had hundreds of these leases in effect.
  • In 1944, sales of salt for use in these leased machines amounted to approximately $500,000.
  • The 'Lixator' lease contained a provision allowing the lessee to buy salt from a competitor if offered at a lower price, provided International Salt was given the opportunity to match that price.
  • International Salt argued the tying clause was necessary to ensure its machines functioned correctly, claiming its salt had a higher, more consistent quality than competitors' salt.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States Government brought a civil action against International Salt Company in the U.S. District Court.
  • The Government sought an injunction, alleging the company's leases violated § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act.
  • The Government moved for summary judgment on the pleadings and admissions of fact.
  • The District Court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment and issued an injunction against International Salt.
  • International Salt Company, as appellant, took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a lease agreement that requires the lessee to purchase an unpatented product (salt) exclusively from the lessor for use in the lessor's patented machine violate § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act when a substantial volume of commerce is affected?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Jackson

Yes. Tying the use of a patented product to the purchase of an unpatented product is a per se violation of antitrust law when it forecloses competition in a substantial volume of commerce. The patents on the salt machines grant International Salt a monopoly on the machines themselves, but they confer no right to restrain trade in the separate market for unpatented salt. It is unreasonable per se to foreclose competitors from any substantial market, and the $500,000 in salt sales affected by these contracts is not insignificant or insubstantial. The provision allowing lessees to buy cheaper salt elsewhere if International Salt does not match the price fails to remedy the anticompetitive effect, as it still gives International Salt a priority on all business at equal prices, thereby stifling competition. Furthermore, the company's quality control justification is invalid; if quality were the true concern, International Salt could have established reasonable quality specifications for salt used in the machines rather than requiring purchase from a particular vendor.


Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter

While agreeing with the majority that the tying clauses are illegal, the dissent argues that Paragraph VI of the district court's decree goes too far. This paragraph, requiring International Salt to offer its machines to all applicants on non-discriminatory terms, strips the company of its legal right to vary its prices for legitimate competitive reasons. Equity should not prohibit lawful conduct unless it is inextricably tied to the unlawful conduct or there is reason to believe the company will disobey the court's primary order. There is no evidence in the record to suggest International Salt would be defiant. Therefore, imposing this additional restraint, which acts as a 'precautionary screw' based on a presupposition of disobedience, is unwarranted and punitive. The case should be remanded for the district court to reconsider this part of the remedy.



Analysis:

This case is significant for establishing a clear per se rule against tying arrangements where the seller has sufficient economic power in the tying product (here, presumed from the patent) and a 'not insubstantial' amount of commerce in the tied product is affected. By finding a $500,000 volume of commerce to be 'not insubstantial,' the Court set a relatively low threshold for plaintiffs. This decision solidified the doctrine of patent misuse, preventing patent holders from leveraging their legal monopoly to gain anticompetitive advantages in separate markets. The ruling simplified antitrust litigation for tying claims, as it eliminated the need for a complex, rule-of-reason analysis of the overall competitive effects in the market for the tied product.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query International Salt Co. v. United States (1947) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for International Salt Co. v. United States