The U.S. Supreme Court case Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., et al., in 1934 revolved around patent infringement issues related to sound film technology. American Tri-Ergon Corporation held patents for a specific type of sound-on-film system and sued Altoona Publix Theatres for using this technology without their permission or licensing agreement, claiming it was an infringement on their patents rights. However, the court ruled in favor of Altoona Publix Theatres stating that they were not infringing upon any valid patent claims by American Tri-Ergon Corp because the latter's claim lacked novelty and inventiveness as required under patent law principles at that time.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on sound film technology was incorrect due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness - two key requirements for patentability under U.S law. They contended that prior art existed which demonstrated similar concepts and technologies, thus negating any claim of originality or uniqueness by the plaintiff. Furthermore, they suggested that even if such prior art did not exist, the patented invention would have been an obvious solution to those skilled in relevant technical fields at the time it was made; hence failing another criterion for patentability – non-obviousness. In their view, upholding this particular patent stifled competition and innovation rather than promoting it as intended by intellectual property laws.