June 26 (Bloomberg) -- Companies and business groups got most of what they sought in Chief Justice John Roberts's first U.S. Supreme Court term, including limits on antitrust and securities suits and the prospect of new caps on punitive damages next year.

The high court last week wrapped up a 2005-06 business docket that also produced victories for companies on arbitration of customer disputes and corporate tax breaks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business group, declared victory in 10 of the 14 cases in which it took a stance.

The most significant case may prove to be the justices' agreement to hear arguments from New York-based Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit over a $79.5 million award to the widow of a former smoker. During the previous three years, the court turned away repeated business calls to tighten constitutional limits on damages it set in 2003. The justices will consider the Philip Morris case in the nine-month term that starts in October.

``We were banging our heads against the wall trying to put forward every available issue,'' said Robin Conrad, senior vice president of the Chamber of Commerce's litigation unit in Washington. She said lower courts have ``thumbed their noses'' at earlier Supreme Court limits on punitive damages.

The justices will issue additional rulings in non-business cases today and likely conclude their term later this week. They still must rule in cases involving Guantanamo Bay inmates, congressional redistricting and campaign-finance restrictions.

Unanimous Rulings

Most of the business rulings were unanimous, giving Roberts, 51, and the other new justice, Samuel Alito, 56, little chance to distinguish themselves from their colleagues on such issues. In many cases, the justices reversed lower court decisions that business groups had warned would have grave consequences.

In one such case involving Stuttgart, Germany-based DaimlerChrysler AG, the court reinstated an Ohio tax break for companies that invest in new equipment and factories in the state. The justices said a group of Ohio and Michigan taxpayers lacked the legal right to challenge the tax credit in federal court.

In another unanimous ruling, the court gave a broad reading to a federal law that limits securities-fraud lawsuits. Ruling in a case involving New York-based Merrill Lynch & Co., the justices said the law bars large class-action cases by investors who say they were duped into holding stocks and bonds.

``It's really quite a broad, favorable opinion for national regulation of securities law,'' said Beth Brinkmann, a Washington appellate lawyer at Morrison & Foerster.

Another business victory drew only one dissent, from Justice Clarence Thomas, as the court gave lenders more ability to force customer disputes into arbitration.

Antitrust Decisions

On antitrust law, three decisions continued a trend away from rigid prohibitions on corporate conduct and toward a more flexible, market-oriented approach.

In a case involving the oil industry, the justices unanimously said joint ventures can set prices without violating antitrust laws. The court was also unanimous in limiting suits against patent holders who require customers to buy a second item along with a sought-after product.

A third antitrust decision, a 7-2 victory for Gothenburg, Sweden-based truckmaker Volvo AB, gave companies more leeway to charge different prices to different customers without running afoul of a federal price-discrimination law.

Not Sympathetic

``This is a court that's proven not to be very sympathetic with antitrust claims that reach out very far,'' said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust professor at the University of Iowa law school in Iowa City.

Businesses got a rare setback last week. In a case involving a railyard worker for Burlington Nothern Santa Fe Corp., the court voted to boost workers' ability to sue employers who reassign or suspend them for filing job-discrimination complaints.

For workers, ``it's a substantial improvement in what the law has been in most parts of the country,'' said Eric Schnapper, a law professor at the University of Washington in Seattle who helped represent the employee of Burlington Northern, which is based in Fort Worth, Texas.

Patent Law

The court signaled new interest in patent law, hearing three cases and asking the Bush administration for advice in several others. That ultimately may benefit high-tech companies, which say the U.S. appeals court that handles patent law has left companies too vulnerable to infringement suits.

The technology industry got a victory as the court unanimously said companies that have infringed others' patents don't necessarily have to change their products. The case, which involved San Jose, California-based EBay Inc., was similar to an earlier dispute that had threatened to shut down the BlackBerry e-mail service.

The EBay case hinted at a split that may divide the justices in future patent-infringement disputes. Roberts, joined by two of his colleagues, wrote that judges have almost always barred use of a disputed invention after a finding of infringement.

Four other justices, led by Anthony Kennedy, 69, voiced concern about what they said is a growing number of companies that seek patents for the purpose of extracting mammoth licensing fees, rather than selling products. The final two justices, Thomas, 58, and Alito, didn't ally with either camp.

``They've clearly drawn the line in the sand,'' said EBay's lawyer in the case, Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin in Washington. ``I've got my four and you've got your three, and we'll fight for the hearts and minds of the last two.''

High Hopes

Business groups have high hopes for Roberts and Alito. Each was endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers when nominated by President George W. Bush.

Whether they meet those expectations will depend in part on how they rule on punitive damages, an issue that divides the court's conservative wing. Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, 70, say the Constitution doesn't limit punitive damages. The justices Alito and Roberts replaced, Sandra Day O'Connor and the late William Rehnquist, both voted to restrict damages in 2003.

``At this point, it's too early to tell whether this is going to be a pro-business court,'' Phillips said. ``Sometimes ideology doesn't mix well with business.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 26, 2006 00:18 EDT