In the 1892 case of Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Company, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Duer, had patented an improvement on cabinet locks and sued Corbin Cabinet Lock Company for infringement. However, the defendant argued that they were using a different method to achieve similar results and thus not infringing upon Duer's patent rights. The court ruled in favor of Corbin Cabinet Lock Company stating that while both methods produced similar outcomes (a secure lock), they achieved this through distinct mechanisms which meant there was no direct infringement on Duer’s patent rights. This ruling emphasized that patents protect specific processes or designs rather than general ideas or end products.

The dissenting opinion in the Duer v. Corbin Cabinet Lock Company case argued that the patent at issue was not a new invention, but rather an improvement of an existing one and thus should not be granted full patent protection. The justice believed that the plaintiff's lock design was merely a modification or adaptation of previously known designs, which did not warrant exclusive rights under patent law. Furthermore, they contended that granting such broad patents would stifle innovation by preventing others from making improvements on existing inventions. They also expressed concern about potential misuse of such expansive patents to monopolize certain industries or markets unfairly.