The U.S. Supreme Court case Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc., in 1923 revolved around copyright infringement issues related to motion pictures. The plaintiff, Axel G. Binderup, claimed that the defendants had infringed upon his copyrighted film by using substantial parts of it without permission or giving credit in their own production titled "Breaking Home Ties." However, the court ruled against him stating that there was no substantial similarity between the two films and hence no copyright violation occurred. The court noted that while both films depicted a young man leaving home for city life and then returning after facing hardships; these were common themes not subject to copyright protection. It also pointed out significant differences between the two works including character development and plot progression which further weakened Binderup's claim of copying. This ruling set an important precedent emphasizing on 'substantial similarity' as a key factor when determining cases of potential copyright infringement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against a film distributor for alleged copyright infringement was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had knowingly and willfully infringed upon the plaintiff's copyrighted material. Furthermore, it questioned whether damages could be accurately assessed given the nature of film distribution and exhibition practices at that time. It also expressed concern about potential chilling effects on free speech and artistic expression if overly broad interpretations of copyright law were allowed to stand unchallenged.