In the 1902 case of Cary Manufacturing Company v. Acme Flexible Clasp Company, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute. The Cary Manufacturing Company had patented a certain type of clasp for holding papers together and accused Acme Flexible Clasp Company of infringing on their patent rights by producing similar clasps. However, upon examination, it was found that while both products performed the same function in essentially the same way, there were significant differences in design and construction between them which made them distinct from each other. Therefore, despite similarities in purpose and operation method between two products or inventions, if they are not identical or nearly so in form or mode of construction then one cannot be said to infringe upon another's patent rights according to this ruling by the court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cary Manufacturing Company v. Acme Flexible Clasp Company argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider whether or not there had been an infringement on a patent. The dissenting justices believed that the evidence presented clearly showed that there had indeed been an infringement, and thus, they disagreed with the majority's ruling which held otherwise. They contended that even though some elements of a patented invention may be found in prior works, this does not necessarily mean those earlier works are equivalent to the patented invention as a whole. Therefore, they asserted that if someone uses these elements in such a way as to reproduce essentially what is claimed by another’s patent without any significant change or improvement upon it then it constitutes an infringement regardless of minor differences between them.