The Supreme Court case Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co., 1941, revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies. The plaintiff, Automatic Devices Corporation, held a patent for an automatic coin-controlled machine that could be used to vend various items such as candy and cigarettes. They alleged that Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Company had infringed upon their patent by producing similar vending machines without their permission. However, the court ruled in favor of Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co., stating that the design of its vending machine was not identical to that patented by Automatic Devices Corp., hence there was no infringement on the latter's rights under U.S Patent Law. Furthermore, it found out that certain elements claimed in ADC’s patents were already present in prior art or previous inventions which made those claims invalid. This case is significant because it clarified how closely another product must resemble a patented one before it can be considered an infringement and also highlighted importance of novelty and non-obviousness criteria for granting patents.

In the dissenting opinion for Automatic Devices Corp. v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an automatic popcorn machine was flawed because it failed to consider whether or not the device represented a significant advancement in technology. He contended that, while novelty and utility are important factors in determining patentability, they should not be considered sufficient if the invention does not also represent an improvement over existing technologies. In this case, he believed that combining two pre-existing machines - one for popping corn and another for dispensing it - did not constitute such an improvement but rather amounted to mere aggregation of old elements with no new function or result achieved by their union. Therefore, he would have reversed the judgment upholding Sinko’s patent.