In the case of David Lupton's Sons Company v. Automobile Club of America, 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced even if it violated state law. The dispute arose when David Lupton's Sons Company (DLSC), an advertising firm, entered into a contract with the Automobile Club of America (ACA) for exclusive rights to advertise in ACA’s publications and on roadside signs across several states. However, some states had laws prohibiting such advertisements on public highways. The court ruled in favor of DLSC stating that while certain aspects of their agreement may have been illegal under specific state laws - namely those regarding highway advertisement - this did not render their entire contract unenforceable as long as there were other legal avenues through which DLSC could fulfill its contractual obligations i.e., by advertising in ACA’s publications instead. This decision underscored that contracts are generally enforceable unless they require parties to engage exclusively in illegal activities or violate public policy broadly defined at federal level rather than specific local regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for David Lupton's Sons Company v. Automobile Club of America, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of patent law and its application to this case. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff’s patented invention – a road sign system - did not infringe upon any existing patents held by the defendant, as claimed by them. They contended that there were significant differences between both systems which made them distinct from each other. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "public use," arguing instead that public use should be interpreted more narrowly within patent law context and should only apply when an invention is used publicly without restriction or secrecy before it is patented. In their view, since Lupton’s system wasn’t disclosed to public prior to his patent application but rather kept confidential during testing phase, he didn't forfeit his right to secure a patent due to “public use”. Thus according to these justices, ruling against him based on such grounds was unjustified.