Barak Orbach

Year	Landmark	Notes
Year	Landmark	Note
1889	Fowle v. Park, 131 U.S. 88 (1889)	The Supreme Court dismisses the argument that RPM agreements are unreasonable restraints of trade. (Transcript of the Record, 7.90MB)
1890	The Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 289 (1890)	Congress expressly outlaws restraints of trade.
1902	E. Bement & Sons v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902)	The Supreme Court holds that RPM agreements related to patented products are legal, because the very object of intellectual property laws monopoly.
1908	Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908)	The Supreme Court refuses to enforce a retail-price notice printed in the book, when the publisher and the retailer have no agreement. The Court chooses not to address the legality of RPM agreements.
1911	Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911)	Seller’s restrictions on resale prices are held per se illegal. (Transcript of the Record, 18.2MB)
1912	Henry v. A.B. Dick, 224 U.S. 1 (1912)	Patents convey the right to impose restrictions on the right to resale the patented items, so long as these restrictions are related only to the patented items.
1912	Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. U.S., 226 U.S. 20 (1912)	A patent does not allows manucaturers to collude to fix prises and agree on RPM.
1913	Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913)	Selling below minimum prices stated in a patent license agreement does not constitute patent infringement.
1917	Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917)	The Supreme Court restates the per se prohibition against RPM in light of common confusions.
1918	Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8 (1918)	The Supreme Court clarifies again the per se illegality of RPM.
1919	U.S. v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)	Manufacturers may unilaterally refuse to deal with retailers that do not follow suggested retail pricing.
1926	United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926)	Manufacturers may fix retail prices on goods delivered to the retailers on consignment or sold by agents. The Supreme Court upholds the right of a patent holder to limit the methods of resale and resale prices.
1931	California's Fair Trade Act, 1931 Cal. Stat. 278	Allowing RPM for branded goods in California
1933	Amendment to the California Fair Trade Act, 1933 Cal. Stat. 260	Allowing RPM for all goods. Sixteen states follow California: Arizona (1936), Illinois (1935), Iowa (1935), Kentucky (1936), Louisiana (1936), Maryland (1935), New Jersey (1935), New York (1935), Ohio (1935), Oklahoma (1936), Oregon (1935), Pennsylvania (1936), Rhode Island (1936), Virginia (1936), Washington (1935), and Wisconsin (1935)
1933	The National Industrial Recovery Administration
1936	Old Dearborn Distrib. Co. v. Seagram Distillers Corp., 299 U.S. 183 (1936)	The Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of pro-RPM state statutes.
1937	The Miller-Tydings Resale Price Maintenance Act, 50 Stat. 693 (1937)	Congress exempts from the scope of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act minimum RPM agreements, which are legal in... By 1975 43 states enact Fair Trade Acts.
1942	U.S. v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942)
1948	United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948)	Copyrights do not convey the right to set resale prices.
1951	Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp, 341 U.S. 384 (1951)	state laws cannot extend the Miller-Tydings exemption to enforce RPM agreements against third parties.
1952	The McGuire Act, 66 Stat. 631 (1952)	Congress addresses Schwegmann Bros and extend the scope of the Miller-Tydings Act to enforcements of RPM agreements against third parties.
1956	United States v. McKesson & Robbins, 351 U.S. 305 (1956)
1960	U.S. v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960)
1964	Simpson v. Union Oil Co., 377 U.S. 13 (1964)	Consignment (narrowing GE).
1967	United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365 (1967)	The Supreme Court extends the per se prohibition to non-price vertical restraints, such as exclusive distribution territories.
1968	Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968)	The Supreme Court holds that maximum RPM is per se illegal, like other forms of RPM.
1975	The Consumer Goods Pricing Act	Congress Repeals the Miller-Tydings and McGuire Acts.
1977	Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977)	The Supreme Court overrules Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (1967), holding that such non-price vertical restraints would be reviewed under the rule of reason.
1980	Rudman Amendment
1980	California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980).	The Supreme Court Reaffirms the RPM per se illegality rule.
1982	Rice v. Norman Williams, 458 U.S. 654 (1982)	The Supreme Court reaffirms the per se illegality rule.
1984	Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp, 465 U.S. 752 (1984)	The Supreme Court reaffirms the per se illegality rule, despite the urging of the Solicitor General.
1988	Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988)	An agreement between a manufacturer and a retailer to terminate price-cutting retailer is lawful, so long as the parties do not set prices for the remaining retailer.
1997	State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)	The Supreme Court overrules Albrecht (1968), holding that maximum RPM should be examined under the rule of reason.
2007	Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007)	The Supreme Court overrules Dr. Miles, holding that all RPM agreements should be examined under the rule of reason.