In the 1892 case of Coats v. Merrick Thread Company, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for thread spools held by Merrick Thread Company had been infringed upon by Coats. The patent in question involved an improvement to wooden thread spools that allowed them to be more easily used on sewing machines without tangling or breaking the thread. The court found that while there were similarities between the designs produced by both companies, these similarities were not enough to constitute infringement as they did not involve any novel features covered under Merrick's patent claim. Therefore, it was ruled that Coats had not infringed upon Merrick's patented design and could continue producing their version of improved wooden spools for use on sewing machines.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Coats v. Merrick Thread Company, it was argued that there were significant issues with how evidence was handled during trial. The justice felt that certain pieces of evidence should have been admitted to help establish whether or not a patent had been infringed upon. Additionally, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted an 'invention' in terms of patents and believed that this narrow definition could potentially stifle innovation and progress in industry and technology. He also expressed concern about potential bias from expert witnesses who may have personal interests at stake in such cases, arguing for more stringent standards when considering their testimonies.