Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1928 that revolved around patent infringement claims. Becher had patented an invention for a permanent wave machine used in hairdressing and sued Contoure Laboratories for infringing on his patent rights by manufacturing and selling similar devices without his permission. The lower courts ruled in favor of Becher, but the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that Becher's patent was invalid because it lacked novelty as required by law - they claimed that there were prior existing inventions which performed essentially the same function with only minor differences from Becher's design. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of lower courts stating that while there may be similarities between different machines, if an inventor makes improvements or changes leading to new results or increased efficiency then their invention is considered novel under patent law even if its fundamental principles are not entirely new. Therefore, despite some similarities with previous designs, since Becher’s device offered more efficient operation than earlier models due to its unique combination of elements it deserved protection under patent laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that had been publicly used and sold by another party prior to its application was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this ruling contradicted previous case law which stated that public use or sale of an invention more than two years before applying for a patent invalidated said patent. They contended that allowing such patents would undermine the purpose of the Patent Act, which is meant to encourage innovation and reward inventors who contribute something new and useful to society. By upholding a patent on an already-used invention, they argued, the court was essentially rewarding someone for copying others' work rather than innovating themselves.