opinion: Per Curiam.
  This case represents the aftermath of our decision in Simpson v. Union Oil Co., 377 U. S. 13, where we held that a “consignment” agreement for the sale of gasoline, required by Union Oil of lessees of its retail outlets, violated the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. The case was remanded for a hearing on other issues and for a determination of damages. The last sentence of the Court’s opinion stated:
  “We reserve the question whether, when all the facts are known, there may be any equities that would warrant only prospective application in damage suits of the rule governing price fixing by the ‘consignment’ device which we announce today.” Id., at 24-25.
  On remand, the District Court interpreted this sentence as an invitation to determine if any “equities” were present which would warrant precluding the imposition of damages on Union Oil. Its finding was that an application of the rule announced by this Court to the damages action would be unfair, on the ground that the decision in United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U. S. 476, gave Union Oil a reasonable basis for believing that its actions were entirely lawful. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
  The petition for certiorari presents the question whether in this case the principles we announced in Simpson v. Union Oil Co. should be made prospective in the present litigation. We grant the petition on that question and deny it on the other questions tendered; and we reverse the judgment below.
  We held when the case was here before that on the facts of record the use of the “consignment” device was within the prohibited ban of price fixing for nonpatented articles, 377 U. S., at 16-24, and that “on the issue of resale price maintenance under the Sherman Act there is nothing left to try, for there was an agreement for resale price maintenance, coercively employed.” Id., at 24.
  The question we reserved was not an invitation to deny the fruits of successful litigation to this petitioner. Congress has determined the causes of action that arise from antitrust violations; and there has been an adjudication that a cause of action against respondent has been established. Formulation of a rule of law in an Article III case or controversy which is prospective as to the parties involved in the immediate litigation would be most unusual, especially where the rule announced was not innovative. Since parties in other cases might be shown to have structured product distribution on quite different considerations, we reserved the question whether in some of those other situations equity might warrant the conclusion that prospective application was the only fair course.
  Reversed.