In the case of Concrete Steel Company v. Vandenburg, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent infringement. The plaintiff, Concrete Steel Company, alleged that Vandenburg had infringed upon their patented design for reinforced concrete construction by using an identical method in his own projects without permission or license. However, Vandenburg argued that he was not guilty of infringement because he had been using this method before it was patented by the plaintiff and therefore could continue to use it under "prior user" rights. The court sided with Vandenburg and held that if someone has used a particular process or technique prior to its being patented by another party, they retain the right to continue using it even after a patent is granted. This ruling established important precedent regarding "prior user" rights in U.S. patent law.

In the dissenting opinion for Concrete Steel Company v. Vandenburgh, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Vandenburgh was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have led to a reversal of its judgment. They contended that these errors included allowing certain evidence to be admitted and giving improper instructions to the jury about how they should consider this evidence during their deliberations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant laws and precedents related to contracts and property rights, arguing instead for an alternative reading which would have favored Concrete Steel Company's position in this dispute over land ownership.