In the Campbell v. Haverhill case of 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights. The plaintiff, Campbell, held patents for certain improvements in sewing machines and had granted licenses to various manufacturers to use these patented improvements. However, he later sold his entire interest in one of those patents to another party who then sued some of the licensees for infringement. The defendants argued that they were protected by their existing licenses from Campbell. The court decided that when an inventor sells all his rights under a patent without any reservation or condition attached to it, he can no longer control its use or collect royalties from it because he has parted with everything - title and right which makes up property in a patent right; therefore cannot sue anyone for infringing upon this patent as it is not within his ownership anymore. This decision established important principles regarding transferability and enforceability of intellectual property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Campbell v. Haverhill, it was argued that a patent owner should be able to control and profit from their invention even after selling it. The justice believed that the majority's decision undermined property rights by allowing purchasers of patented items to use them in any way they saw fit without compensating the inventor. This, according to him, would discourage innovation because inventors wouldn't have as much incentive to create new things if they couldn't fully benefit from their work. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of patent law and felt that it didn't adequately protect inventors' rights.