In Dunham v. Dennison Manufacturing Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a patent infringement case in 1893. The plaintiff, Dunham, held a patent for an improvement to tags used by merchants to mark goods and sued Dennison Manufacturing Company for infringing upon this patent. The defendant argued that they had not infringed because their product was different from what was described in the plaintiff's claim. However, the court found that while there were differences between the two products, these did not constitute significant changes or improvements over Dunham’s patented invention; therefore it constituted as an infringement of his rights under law. The decision reinforced legal principles regarding patents and intellectual property rights - specifically emphasizing that minor alterations do not exempt one from charges of infringement if essential features are copied without permission.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Dunham v. Dennison Manufacturing Company argued that the patent for a certain type of envelope was valid and should be upheld. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that it lacked novelty, asserting instead that its unique design constituted an improvement over previous envelopes and therefore deserved protection under patent law. He contended that while individual elements of the design may have existed previously, their combination into this particular form created something new and innovative. Furthermore, he pointed out that several other courts had already recognized this patent as valid, suggesting consistency in legal interpretation across jurisdictions. Therefore, he believed it was incorrect to invalidate it on grounds of lackiness novelty or being obvious.