In the 1960 case Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies involved in electrostatic painting technology. The plaintiff, Binks Manufacturing Company, alleged that Ransburg Electro-Coating Corporation had infringed on its patented method for electrostatically applying paint to objects by using an atomizer to create charged particles of paint which are then attracted to the object being painted. However, Ransburg argued that their process was fundamentally different as it used no atomizer and instead relied on creating a mist of charged particles through hydrodynamic means. The court ruled in favor of Ransburg stating that there were significant differences between both processes and thus no infringement occurred. They noted specifically that while both methods utilized similar principles (i.e., charging particles so they would be attracted to an oppositely-charged surface), this alone did not constitute infringement since these principles were well-known prior art at the time Binks' patent was granted.

In the dissenting opinion for Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an electrostatic painting process, arguing that it was not sufficiently innovative to warrant protection under patent law. He contended that the process merely involved applying known principles of physics in a new context and did not represent any significant technological advance or discovery as required by patent statutes. Furthermore, he criticized the court's interpretation of "invention" as too broad and warned that such an expansive view could stifle competition and innovation by granting monopolies over basic scientific concepts applied in different fields.