On Monday, March 26^th, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. dba Kay’s Kloset.  What is at stake is a century old rule, often referred to as the "Dr. Miles rule."  Under the Dr. Miles rule, which came down in a Supreme Court decision in 1911, the Court held that agreements between manufacturers and resellers fixing a minimum price by which a distributor is allowed to resell the manufacturer’s product – that is, a minimum resale price maintenance agreement – is an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and is per se unlawful.  Manufacturers are allowed to suggest a resale price – a Manufacturer’s Suggested Resale Price (“MSRP”).  While a minimum resale price maintenance agreement currently is per se unlawful, manufacturers enjoy some limited indirect and lawful means in shaping their customers’ minimum resale prices.  For example, under what is commonly referred to as the Colgate doctrine, a manufacturer unilaterally may announce a policy that it will cease doing business with its customers that decide to resell the manufacturer’s product below the MSRP.  If the manufacturer reaches an agreement or understanding with a reseller about what the minimum resale price should be, however, then the protections of the Colgate doctrine no longer apply, and any such agreement or understanding once again would be characterized as an unreasonable restraint of trade.  Over the years, practices and activities relating to MSRPs have clouded as to what might be considered lawful versus unlawful.  In the Leegin case to be heard on Monday by our highest Court, it appears that the manufacturer tried to implement a policy within the lawful parameters of the Colgate doctrine, but the lower court characterized the conduct at issue as an unlawful minimum resale price maintenance agreement and, therefore, per se unlawful.