In the case of Charles L. Rawson et al. v. Western Sand Blast Company et al., 1903, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to sandblasting technology. The petitioners, Charles L. Rawson and others, claimed that they held exclusive rights to certain improvements in machines used for sandblasting purposes under a patent granted by the United States Patent Office. They alleged that Western Sand Blast Company had infringed upon their patented design and sought legal remedy against them. The court examined whether or not there was any infringement on part of Western Sand Blast Company as per claims made by Rawson and his associates based on their interpretation of the scope of their patent protection. After careful consideration, it was determined by the court that no such violation had occurred because what was being utilized by Western Sandblast did not fall within what was protected under Rawson's patents; hence no infringement took place.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Charles L. Rawson et al., v. Western Sand Blast Company et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Western Sand Blast Company, was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law principles. The dissent believed that there was sufficient evidence presented during trial demonstrating that Rawson and his associates had not breached their contractual obligations as claimed by Western Sand Blast Company. Furthermore, they contended that the majority overlooked key facts and did not give enough weight to certain pieces of evidence when making its decision. They also disagreed with how damages were calculated for this alleged breach, arguing it unfairly favored one party over another without proper justification or explanation from the court.