In the case of Clark Thread Company v. Willimantic Linen Company in 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for thread manufacturing machinery. The Clark Thread Company claimed that the Willimantic Linen Company had infringed on their patented technology, which involved an innovative method to put twist into two strands of thread simultaneously while they were being spun from raw cotton fibers. However, after examining both patents and considering expert testimony regarding how each machine functioned, the court concluded that there was no infringement by Willimantic because its process differed significantly from Clark's patented method. Specifically, it found that while both machines twisted threads together at high speed using similar mechanisms, only Clark’s device did so continuously as part of spinning them directly from raw cotton; whereas Willimantic's machine first produced individual threads separately and then combined them later in a separate operation.

In the dissenting opinion for Clark Thread Company v. Willimantic Linen Company, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. The dissenting justices believed that there had been a clear error made by lower courts in their interpretation of what constituted an 'invention'. They contended that even though the process patented might seem simple or obvious after its discovery, this does not mean it lacked novelty at the time of invention. Furthermore, they pointed out that this particular innovation had brought about significant improvements and economic benefits to society which further attested to its inventive nature. Therefore, they disagreed with majority's decision to invalidate the patent on grounds of lack of inventiveness and novelty.