In the 1894 U.S. Supreme Court case Coupe v. Royer, the court examined a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to flour production machinery. The plaintiff, Coupe, alleged that Royer had infringed on his patent by using and selling machines that were based on his patented design without permission or compensation. However, the defendant argued that he was not infringing because he had made significant improvements to the original design which constituted a new invention altogether. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Coupe stating that even though there may have been some modifications or improvements made by Royer to Coupe's machine, these changes did not constitute a new invention as they were merely variations of what already existed in prior patents held by others before Coupe’s own patent was issued. Therefore, it was determined that any such alterations would still fall under the scope of infringement if they utilized key aspects of an existing patented technology without authorization from its owner - regardless if those elements are improved upon or modified slightly.

In the dissenting opinion for Coupe v. Royer, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to determine whether or not a state law is wise or unwise, just or unjust; rather, its role is only to ascertain if such laws are constitutional. In this case, he believed that California’s statute requiring all able-bodied men between 18-45 years old to work on public roads for up to three days each year without pay did not violate any provision of the Constitution. The requirement could be seen as part of citizens' civic duty in maintaining their community infrastructure and thus does not constitute involuntary servitude prohibited by Thirteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he pointed out that similar laws had been upheld in other states without question about their constitutionality.