In the case of DeJonge & Company v. Breuker & Kessler Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an improved method of making composite metal sheets could be infringed upon by another company using a similar process. The patented process involved bonding two different metals together to create a sheet that had the desirable properties of both metals. Breuker & Kessler Co., who were accused of infringement, argued that their method differed significantly from DeJonge's and thus did not infringe on their patent rights. The court ruled in favor of DeJonge & Co., stating that even though there may have been differences in how each company achieved its final product, it was clear that Breuker and Kessler’s methods still fell within the scope defined by DeJonge's patent claims. Therefore, they were found guilty of infringement.

In the dissenting opinion for DEJONGE & COMPANY v. BREUKER & KESSLER COMPANY, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Breuker and Kessler Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Dejonge and Company should not be held liable for patent infringement because they had no knowledge of any existing patents on the design they used in their products. They contended that Dejonge and Company acted in good faith when producing their goods, as there were no clear indications or warnings about potential patent violations. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "intent" within patent law context, arguing it should only apply if an entity knowingly infringes upon another’s patented work rather than being applied broadly to all instances of unintentional infringement.