The U.S. Supreme Court case Buckeye Powder Company v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Powder Company et al., 1918, revolved around a patent dispute between two companies involved in the manufacturing of explosives and gunpowder products. The plaintiff, Buckeye Powder Company, accused the defendant, E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., of infringing on its patented method for producing smokeless powder used in firearms and artillery shells during World War I era. However, the court ruled in favor of DuPont stating that it did not violate any patents as their process was significantly different from that which was claimed by Buckeye's patent rights; thus no infringement occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Buckeye Powder Company v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours Powder Company et al., 1918, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Buckeye was flawed due to an incorrect interpretation of patent law. The dissent contended that the patent held by DuPont should not have been considered valid because it did not meet necessary criteria for novelty and non-obviousness, as required under U.S. Patent Law. They believed that prior art existed which invalidated DuPont’s claim to originality and innovation in their patented product or process, thus making it ineligible for protection from competition with similar products like those produced by Buckeye Powder Company.