In the case of Brenner, Commissioner of Patents v. Manson in 1965, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a patent could not be granted for an invention unless it had some proven utility. The dispute arose when chemist Jerome B. Manson applied for a patent on a process to create steroid compounds which he believed would have anti-cancer properties but was unable to demonstrate their effectiveness at the time of his application. The Patent Office denied his application based on lack of proof regarding its usefulness and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court stating that granting patents without any known use would lead to cluttering up with useless inventions and potentially hinder future research efforts in those areas.

In the dissenting opinion for Brenner, Commissioner of Patents v. Manson, Justice Fortas argued that the majority's decision to deny a patent on an unproven but potentially useful compound was too restrictive and could stifle innovation. He contended that the utility requirement should not be interpreted so narrowly as to require proof of specific use for a product whose potential uses were still being explored. Instead, he suggested that it would be sufficient if there is reasonable belief in its potential usefulness based on scientific theories or preliminary testing results. This approach would encourage inventors to disclose their discoveries early without fear of losing patent protection due to lack of proven utility at the time of application.