In the Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent holder could recover damages for infringement during a period when its patent had expired but before it was renewed by Congress. The case involved two companies in the bottle cap industry: Crown Cork & Seal Company and Ferdinand Gutmann Company. In 1925, Crown's patents on certain bottle cap designs expired; however, they were later revived by an act of Congress in 1928 due to wartime conditions that prevented them from fully utilizing their patents during World War I. Gutmann began manufacturing similar caps after the original expiration date but before Congressional renewal of Crown’s patents. After renewing its patents, Crown sued Gutmann for infringement seeking damages for this interim period. The court ruled against Crown stating that no liability existed under federal law because at the time of alleged infringement (between expiry and renewal), there was no valid patent right held by crown as per law which could have been violated by Gutman.

In the dissenting opinion for Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., Justice Butler argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply patent law principles. He contended that the patent in question, which involved a new method of lining bottle caps with cork, was not an improvement on existing methods but rather a completely novel invention deserving of its own protection under patent law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that there had been no infringement by Crown Cork & Seal Co., asserting instead that they had used Gutmann’s patented process without permission or compensation. In his view, this constituted clear infringement warranting legal remedy.