In the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 1950, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co (A&P). The dispute arose when Supermarket Equipment Corp claimed that A&P had infringed on their patent for a checkout counter design used in supermarkets. However, A&P argued that the patent was invalid because it lacked novelty and inventiveness - two key requirements for obtaining a patent under U.S law. The court agreed with A&P's argument, stating that while the patented design may have been new to supermarket industry at its time of creation, it was essentially an obvious combination of pre-existing elements already known within other industries such as retail and banking sectors where similar counters were being used long before this invention came into existence.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., it was argued that there should be a more stringent standard for patentability in order to prevent stifling innovation and competition. The dissenting justices believed that granting patents too easily could lead to monopolies, which would harm both consumers and other businesses by limiting choice and driving up prices. They also expressed concern about the potential for abuse of the patent system, such as using patents not as a means to protect genuine inventions but rather as a tool to suppress competitors or extract undue licensing fees. Therefore, they advocated for maintaining high standards of inventiveness and novelty in determining whether an invention is worthy of patent protection.