In the case of Belding Manufacturing Company v. Challenge Corn Planter Company, the U.S Supreme Court in 1893 dealt with a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Belding Manufacturing Co., alleged that Challenge Corn Planter Co. had infringed on their patented design for an improvement to corn planters - specifically, a device designed to prevent corn from being dropped when it wasn't supposed to be during planting. However, the defendant argued that they hadn’t violated any patents as their machine was based on older designs and didn't use the specific mechanism covered by Belding's patent. The court found in favor of Challenge Corn Planter Co., ruling that there was no infringement because even though both machines performed similar functions and achieved similar results, they did so through different mechanisms or means which is crucial under patent law principles. Therefore, despite similarities between products' outcomes or purposes do not necessarily constitute a violation if different methods are employed.

In the dissenting opinion for Belding Manufacturing Company v. Challenge Corn Planter Company, the justice argued that there was no infringement of patent rights by the defendant. The justice believed that while both companies' products were similar in design and function, they were not identical. He pointed out key differences between their designs which he felt constituted a significant departure from the original patented invention. Furthermore, he contended that even if similarities existed, it did not necessarily mean an infringement had occurred as long as these similarities resulted from independent creation rather than copying or imitation of another's work. Therefore, according to this view, since there was no clear evidence indicating direct imitation or copying by Challenge Corn Planter Company of Belding Manufacturing’s product design and functionality aspects covered under its patent rights; hence it should not be held liable for any alleged patent right infringements.