In the 1903 case of Cornell v. Coyne, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights. The plaintiff, Cornell, alleged that Coyne had infringed upon his patented invention - a machine for making paper boxes. However, Coyne argued that he was not in violation as he had made improvements to the original design which constituted a new and distinct invention. The court held that even though there were some modifications to the original design by Coyne, these changes did not constitute an entirely new product but rather an improvement of existing one and hence it still fell under Cornell's patent protection rights. Therefore, any use or sale of such improved machines by anyone other than Cornell would be considered infringement unless authorized by him through licensing agreements or otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Cornell v. Coyne, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on inheritances violated constitutional principles of uniformity and equality in taxation. The dissenting justices believed that the law unfairly targeted certain types of property (i.e., inherited wealth) while exempting others from taxation altogether. They also took issue with how the law applied different tax rates based on familial relationships between decedents and beneficiaries, arguing this created an arbitrary and unequal system of taxation. Furthermore, they contended that inheritance taxes were essentially double taxes since inherited wealth had already been taxed when originally earned by decedents. In their view, such laws not only infringed upon citizens' rights to transfer property but also threatened economic growth by discouraging savings and investment.