In the case of Anderson v. Watt, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a patent for an improvement in steam generators could be extended beyond its original expiration date. The plaintiff, Anderson, argued that he had made significant improvements to his invention during the life of his patent and therefore deserved an extension. However, defendant Watt countered that these improvements were merely minor adjustments and did not warrant additional protection under patent law. The court ruled in favor of Watt stating that while it is possible for a patent to be extended if substantial changes are made to an invention during its term; this does not apply when those alterations are only slight modifications or adaptations which do not significantly enhance its functionality or efficiency. This decision set important precedent regarding how much change must occur before a patented item can qualify for further protection under U.S. law.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Watt, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing settlers on public lands to count time spent in military service towards their residency requirement was incorrect. The dissenters believed this interpretation of the law went against its original intent and purpose. They contended that Congress intended for settlers to physically reside on and improve the land before they could claim ownership, not simply hold a title while serving elsewhere in the military. This physical presence, they argued, would ensure that only those truly committed to developing these frontier areas would benefit from government incentives rather than speculators or absentee owners who had no real interest in improving them. Furthermore, they felt this ruling undermined other laws designed to encourage settlement of public lands by giving an unfair advantage to veterans over civilians.