Process patent amendment act

The Supreme Court held that Rohm Haas had not engaged in patent misuse. Congress in 1952 had amended the Patent Act to state on its face that patent holders did not engage in patent misuse simply because they sold nonstaple articles for use with their patent, authorized others to use nonstaple articles with the patent, and sued others who sold nonstaple articles for use with the patent, 35 U.S.C. 271(d). A nonstaple article is one that has no substantial commercial use apart from its use in connection with a patented subject matter. The court held that these amendments were intended to allow patent owners to tie the sale of nonstaple articles, like propanil, together with authorization to practice the patented process, and at the same time to allow patent owners to prohibit other producers of nonstaple products from selling the articles for use in connection with the patented process. 

---