United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
333 U.S. 364 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent holder violates the Sherman Act when it acts in concert with its licensees, who are also its competitors, to fix prices and control an entire industry through a network of substantially identical patent licensing agreements.
Facts:
- United States Gypsum Company (USG) was the dominant producer of gypsum products and owned key patents for a superior 'closed-edge' gypsum board.
- Beginning in 1926, USG began offering licenses to its competitors, which included a provision allowing USG to set the minimum price at which the licensees could sell the patented board.
- Through extensive negotiations, documented in letters and memoranda, officers of USG and its competitor companies expressed a common desire to 'organize the industry' and 'stabilize prices' through an industry-wide licensing plan.
- By 1929, USG and nearly all of its competitors in the eastern United States had executed two sets of substantially identical license agreements, with knowledge that the others were also signing.
- To extend its control as an early key patent was about to expire, USG acquired new patent applications ('bubble board') and an existing patent ('starch patent') and licensed the industry under them.
- The license agreements required licensees to pay royalties on all gypsum board sold, whether it used the patents or not, which effectively disincentivized the production of cheaper, unpatented 'open-edge' board.
- USG issued comprehensive price bulletins to all licensees, dictating prices through a basing-point system and minutely regulating terms of sale, credit, and delivery.
- USG created a wholly-owned subsidiary, Board Survey, Inc., to monitor licensee compliance with the price bulletins and investigate reported violations.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil suit against United States Gypsum Co. and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for violations of the Sherman Act.
- The government amended its complaint to allege that USG's patents were invalid.
- The three-judge District Court granted the defendants' motion for partial judgment, ruling that the government was estopped from attacking the validity of the patents.
- At the conclusion of the government's case-in-chief, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants, finding that the government had failed to establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The United States (appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 patent holder, acting in concert with all of its licensees who are also its competitors, violate the Sherman Act by entering into substantially identical license agreements that fix prices for the patented product, suppress competition from unpatented products, and regulate the industry's distribution channels?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
Yes. The patent licensing scheme violates the Sherman Act. The industry-wide license agreements, entered into with knowledge on the part of the licensor and licensees of the adherence of others, combined with the control over prices and distribution through the agreements and bulletins, establish a prima facie case of conspiracy. The court rejected the trial court's interpretation of United States v. General Electric Co., holding that the GE case does not provide a cloak for a patentee, acting in concert with all members of an industry, to completely regiment that industry, suppress unpatented products, and stabilize prices. Such conduct goes far beyond the legitimate reward of a patent monopoly and constitutes an illegal restraint of trade. The court also found that the trial court's key findings of fact, such as the finding that there was no plan to stabilize prices, were 'clearly erroneous' in light of the overwhelming documentary evidence.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, but the Court should not have addressed the issue of the government's ability to challenge patent validity. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion that the licensing arrangement is illegal under the Sherman Act regardless of the patents' validity, this opinion argues that Part II of the majority opinion is an unnecessary dictum. Because the case could be decided without reaching the question of whether the government could attack the patents, the Court should have avoided passing judgment on such an important issue. The precedent of the trial court on that specific issue could have been sterilized simply by declaring it irrelevant to the final decision.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the antitrust immunity for patent holders established in United States v. General Electric. It clarifies that while a single license containing price restrictions might be permissible, a network of licenses blanketing an entire industry, used as a vehicle for competitors to collectively stabilize prices and control the market, constitutes an illegal conspiracy. The case establishes that courts will look beyond the formal legality of individual license agreements to the overall purpose and effect of the concerted action. This ruling reinforced the principle that otherwise lawful acts can become unlawful when performed in concert to restrain trade, making it a cornerstone case in patent misuse and antitrust law.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. United States Gypsum Co.