In the case of Buck Stove and Range Co. v. Vickers, 1912, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff, Buck Stove and Range Company claimed that Vickers had infringed on their patented design for a stove lid lifter mechanism by manufacturing similar devices without permission or license from them. However, upon examination of both designs in question - one being an old model created prior to Buck's patent claim and another being the disputed device made by Vickers - it was determined that there were significant differences between them which rendered any claims of direct imitation invalid. The court ruled in favor of defendant Vickers stating that while his design may have been inspired by previous models including those patented by Buck Stove & Range Co., it did not directly copy or infringe upon their specific patents as each element functioned differently than those described in plaintiff’s patents. This ruling set a precedent emphasizing careful scrutiny when determining whether new inventions are truly unique or simply modifications to existing designs; thereby ensuring fair competition within industries reliant on technological innovation.

In the dissenting opinion for Buck Stove and Range Co. v. Vickers, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contempt citation against union leaders who violated an injunction during a labor dispute was flawed. The dissent contended that the court had overstepped its bounds by intervening in what should have been considered a private matter between employers and employees. It also suggested that there were serious questions about whether or not the original injunction had been justified, given that it seemed to infringe upon workers' rights to free speech and assembly. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly the court interpreted "obstruction of commerce," arguing this interpretation could potentially criminalize any strike action which might impact business operations even indirectly.