In the case of Bassick Manufacturing Co. v. R.M. Hollingshead Co., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies over an invention related to automobile jacks, specifically those used for changing tires on vehicles. The plaintiff, Bassick Manufacturing Company, held a patent for this type of jack and accused defendant R.M Hollingshead Company of infringing upon their patented design in its own product line. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that there was no infringement because the alleged similarities were merely superficial or functional necessities rather than unique aspects protected by patent law. Furthermore, it found that some elements claimed as original by Bassick had already been present in prior art at the time they filed their patent application. This decision reinforced important principles regarding what constitutes valid grounds for claiming infringement under U.S Patent Law - namely that only truly novel and non-obvious features can be protected against imitation by others.

In the dissenting opinion for Bassick Manufacturing Co. v. R.M. Hollingshead Co., it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness, as determined by the majority ruling. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant differences between the patented invention and prior art which warranted protection under patent law, arguing against a strict interpretation of what constitutes an 'invention'. They also disagreed with how evidence was evaluated in this case, suggesting that expert testimony had been undervalued or overlooked during proceedings. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on innovation if inventors could not secure patents for their creations because minor similarities existed with previous inventions.