In the case of Columbus Construction Company v. Crane Company, 1898, the U.S Supreme Court was called upon to resolve a dispute over patent rights. The Columbus Construction Company had sued the Crane Company for infringing on its patented design for an improvement in dredging machines used in deepening channels and harbors. The lower court ruled in favor of Columbus Construction, but this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court which held that there were no new elements or combinations in their invention that would make it eligible for patent protection under existing laws. Therefore, even though they may have improved efficiency or utility through their design changes, these did not constitute a novel invention as required by law to be granted a patent right.

In the dissenting opinion for Columbus Construction Company v. Crane Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Crane Co., which had sued Columbus Construction for patent infringement, was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the original patent claim had been interpreted and applied by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court justices. They contended that this interpretation went beyond what should have been covered under existing patent law at the time, thus unfairly penalizing Columbus Construction for using technology they felt should not have been protected by Crane Co.'s patents. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative implications on future innovation if such broad interpretations of patents were allowed to stand unchallenged.