The Burnrite Coal Briquette Company v. Riggs et al., 1926, is a U.S Supreme Court case that revolved around the issue of patent infringement. The plaintiff, Burnrite Coal Briquette Company, alleged that the defendants had infringed upon their patented process for manufacturing coal briquettes by using an identical method without permission or license. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants on grounds that they were not infringing because they used a different material (bituminous coal) than what was specified in the plaintiff's patent (anthracite coal). However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision was reversed and remanded back to district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court held that it wasn't necessary for every detail mentioned in a patent claim to be copied exactly for infringement to occur; substantial similarities could also constitute as such if they resulted in essentially similar results.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Burnrite Coal Briquette Company v. Riggs et al., 1926, argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff, Burnrite Coal Briquette Company, was not entitled to an injunction because it had not demonstrated irreparable harm or inadequacy of legal remedies. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how the majority applied precedent regarding nuisance law and property rights. In their view, a more balanced approach would have considered both parties' interests rather than favoring one over another without sufficient justification.