United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952),[1] 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.

The prospective licensees were assured that the other manufacturers were being dealt with on the same basis "in order to establish minimum prices throughout the industry."

Unlike its organizers, Kay & Ess and Chadeloid, New Wrinkle does not manufacture and sell the patented products.

[3] The United States sued Kay & Ess, Chadeloid, and New Wrinkle in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, for conspiring to fix uniform minimum prices and to eliminate competition throughout the wrinkle–finish industry, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.

[4] Because New Wrinkle, unlike Kay & Ess and Chadeloid, did not manufacture or sell the patented products, and just owned and licensed the pooled patents, New Wrinkle contended that it is not engaged in trade or commerce—and thus could not be held liable for restraining trade and commerce under § 1 of the Sherman Act.

"[5] New Wrinkle next argued that the doctrine of United States v. General Electric Co.[6]—the 1926 GE case—immunized the price fixing from the antitrust laws.

The Third Circuit explained: At worst, we think that the patent laws were not intended to empower a patentee to grant a plurality of licenses, each containing provisions fixing the price at which the licensee might sell the product or process .