In the case of C. E. Stevens Company et al. v. Foster & Kleiser Co., 1940, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to billboard construction technology. The plaintiff, C.E Stevens Company, alleged that Foster & Kleiser Co had infringed upon their patented design which allowed billboards to be easily and rapidly changed by using interchangeable parts or sections in its structure - a significant innovation at that time in outdoor advertising industry. The court ruled against C.E Stevens Company stating that their patent was invalid due to lack of novelty as similar designs were already present before they filed for the patent; hence it did not meet one of the key requirements for obtaining a patent – originality or novelty factor. Furthermore, even if there was some degree of uniqueness in their design compared to previous ones (which wasn't proven), it would still fall under 'obvious' category according to Patent Act's standards because any skilled person within same field could have come up with such improvements without requiring inventive skills or creativity.

In the dissenting opinion for C. E. Stevens Company et al. v. Foster & Kleiser Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of equity and fair competition in business practices, which could potentially lead to unjust outcomes in future cases involving similar circumstances. He contended that the defendants' actions were not merely competitive but constituted an unfair attempt to destroy or seriously damage their competitor’s business by using deceptive tactics such as misrepresentation and false advertising, which should be considered illegal under existing laws regulating commerce and trade practices at both state and federal levels. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and case law regarding what constitutes "unfair competition," arguing that it was overly narrow and failed to adequately consider broader issues related to public interest, consumer protection, economic stability, etc., thereby undermining fundamental objectives of antitrust legislation designed to promote free market competition while preventing monopolistic abuses.