In the case of Corbin Cabinet Lock Company v. Eagle Lock Company, 1893, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a patent for a certain type of lock mechanism had been infringed upon by another company. The plaintiff, Corbin Cabinet Lock Company claimed that Eagle Lock Company had violated their patent rights by producing and selling locks similar to those patented by them. However, after examining both locks in question and considering previous patents on similar devices, the court ruled in favor of Eagle Lock Company. They found that while there were similarities between the two products, they were not identical nor did they operate identically; therefore no infringement occurred. Furthermore, it was determined that Corbin's patent wasn't entirely new but an improvement on existing designs which didn't warrant exclusive rights over all subsequent improvements made within its general principle.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Corbin Cabinet Lock Company v. Eagle Lock Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for a certain type of lock was incorrect because it did not meet the criteria for novelty and non-obviousness required by patent law. The justice believed that there were already similar locks existing at the time when this particular lock was patented, which should have disqualified it from being considered as an original invention. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were some minor differences between this lock and previous ones, they were so trivial and obvious to any person skilled in making locks that they could not be deemed worthy of a new patent. He also expressed concern about how upholding such patents would stifle competition and innovation within industries like locksmithing by allowing companies to monopolize basic designs or mechanisms with only slight modifications.