In the case of Davis's Administrator v. Weibbold in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Davis's administrator, claimed that Weibbold had infringed on a patent held by Davis for an improvement to pavement construction. However, Weibbold argued that he had not violated any patents as his method of constructing pavements was different from the one patented by Davis and thus constituted a new invention altogether. The court ruled in favor of Weibold stating that while both methods involved similar materials and processes, they were fundamentally distinct inventions due to their differing end results - specifically how each method affected water drainage. Therefore it did not constitute infringement under patent law which requires not only similarity but also equivalency between two inventions for infringement to be established. This decision reinforced the principle that minor alterations or improvements can qualify as new inventions if they produce significantly different results or solve problems in ways distinctly different from existing patents.

The dissenting opinion in Davis's Administrator v. Weibold argued that the majority had misinterpreted the law and failed to consider important aspects of the case. The dissent took issue with how the majority interpreted a statute regarding land grants, arguing that it was not intended to apply retroactively as they suggested. They also disagreed with their interpretation of an 1862 act, stating that it did not grant rights to railroad companies but rather confirmed existing ones. Furthermore, they believed that there were factual errors in how the majority described events leading up to this dispute which skewed their understanding of what occurred and influenced their decision unfairly against Davis's administrator.