## Facts

- Rohm & Haas owned a patent covering a method of using propanil as a selective herbicide on rice crops but did not patent propanil itself.
- Propanil was an unpatented chemical with no substantial commercial use other than practicing the patented method.
- Dawson Chemical and related entities manufactured and sold propanil to farmers for use on rice crops.
- Petitioners provided directions instructing users to apply propanil in a manner that practiced the patented method.
- Rohm & Haas sold propanil itself and refused to license other manufacturers under its method patent.
- Rohm & Haas sued for contributory infringement and inducement, alleging petitioners knowingly supplied and encouraged use of a nonstaple material essential to infringing the patented process.
- Petitioners asserted patent misuse, claiming Rohm & Haas effectively tied the patented method to purchase of unpatented propanil and sought to monopolize an unpatented article.

## Issues

1. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)–(d) permits enforcement of a method patent through contributory infringement claims against sellers of an unpatented, nonstaple product with no substantial noninfringing use, without constituting patent misuse.
2. Whether § 271(d) limits the scope of the patent misuse doctrine in cases involving control of nonstaple supplies used to practice a patented process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, rejecting the patent misuse defense.
- The Court held Rohm & Haas did not misuse its method patent by selling propanil itself and refusing to license competing propanil manufacturers.
- Because propanil was a nonstaple commodity with no substantial noninfringing use, Rohm & Haas could rely on contributory infringement remedies against suppliers under § 271(c).
- Section 271(d) barred treating the patentee’s conduct—deriving revenue from, authorizing, or enforcing rights related to contributory infringement—as misuse on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory infringement under § 271(c) applies to sales of a material for use in practicing a patented process when the seller knows the material is especially made or adapted for infringement and it is not a staple article suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
- Under § 271(d), a patentee otherwise entitled to relief is not denied relief or deemed to have committed misuse solely because it derives revenue from, licenses, or enforces rights against contributory infringement.
- The staple/nonstaple distinction is central: controlling supply of a nonstaple item used only to practice the patented invention may be enforced through contributory infringement without automatically triggering misuse.
- Refusal to license others to sell a nonstaple item used only in the patented process, coupled with enforcement of the patent against contributors, is not misuse within the limits set by § 271(d).

## Conclusion

The Court held that Congress, through § 271(c)–(d), preserved contributory infringement liability for suppliers of nonstaple items with no substantial noninfringing use and limited misuse defenses that would otherwise bar enforcement when the patentee controls such nonstaple supplies and sues contributors.


Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980)