In the 1935 case Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a patent dispute between two printing press manufacturers. The plaintiff, Chandler & Price Co., alleged that Brandtjen & Kluge had infringed upon their patented design for an automatic feeder mechanism used in printing presses. However, the court found that while both companies' designs performed similar functions and achieved similar results, they did so through fundamentally different means and mechanisms - thus no infringement occurred according to doctrine of equivalents principle in patent law which states if two devices do same work in substantially same way to accomplish same result they are identical even though they differ in name form or shape . Therefore, it was decided that Brandtjen & Kluge's design did not infringe upon Chandler & Price's patent rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was any new invention involved in the disputed patents. The dissent pointed out that many of the elements found within these patents were already known and used by others before they were patented by Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., which should have invalidated their claims of originality and novelty under patent law. Furthermore, they believed that even if some aspects could be considered novel, they did not constitute an inventive step beyond what would be obvious to someone skilled in this field at the time when these patents were filed for protection. Therefore, according to them, upholding such broad and vague patent claims would stifle competition and innovation rather than promote it as intended by our intellectual property laws.