In the case of Brougham et al. v. Blanton Manufacturing Company, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for a certain type of cotton-bale tie was valid or not. The plaintiffs, Brougham and others were manufacturers who had been sued by Blanton Manufacturing Company for infringing on their patent rights related to this product. They argued that the patented design lacked novelty as it had already been in public use prior to its application date and thus should be invalidated under U.S Patent Law which requires an invention to be new and non-obvious at the time of filing. The court agreed with them after examining evidence showing that similar ties were indeed used before Blanton filed his patent application. It also found no significant difference between those earlier versions and what he claimed as his invention; both consisted essentially of a metal band having one end bent back upon itself forming an eye through which another part could pass thereby securing bales together. Therefore, due to lack of originality in design, it ruled against Blanton Manufacturing Company declaring its patent invalid because it did not meet statutory requirements for novelty.

In the dissenting opinion for Brougham et al. v. Blanton Manufacturing Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that had been in public use for more than two years prior to its application contradicted established legal principles and precedent. The dissenting justices believed this ruling undermined the purpose of patent law, which is not only to reward inventors but also prevent undue monopolies by limiting exclusive rights over inventions after they have been publicly used or sold without a patent claim being made within a reasonable time frame. They contended that allowing patents on inventions already in public use could lead to abuse of monopoly power and stifle competition and innovation.