The U.S. Supreme Court case Cardox Corp. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 1952, revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies over fire extinguishing technology. The petitioner, Cardox Corporation, claimed that its patents were infringed upon by the respondent's (C-O-Two Fire Equipment Company) production of similar devices used to combat fires in oil wells and other locations where water couldn't be used effectively for firefighting purposes. However, the court ruled in favor of C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., stating that there was no infringement as their device operated on a different principle than what was described in Cardox’s patents and hence did not violate any existing patent rights held by them.

The dissenting opinion in the Cardox Corp. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., case argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation of patent law and its application to this particular case. The dissent believed that the originality of an invention should not be determined solely by whether it is a combination of old elements, but rather if it produces new or improved results due to such combination - which was evident with Cardox's fire extinguishing system. They also disagreed with the majority’s view on "prior use", arguing that prior use must be public and widespread enough for those skilled in relevant art to understand and replicate it; mere existence does not invalidate a patent claim as per their understanding. Furthermore, they contended that even if there were evidence of prior use, C-O-Two failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt about such usage before Cardox's invention date.