In the case of Duplate Corporation et al. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Triplex Safety Glass Company, affirming a lower court's decision that Duplate Corporation had infringed upon their patent for laminated safety glass. The patent was originally issued to Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company and later assigned to Triplex Safety Glass Co., who claimed it covered a method for producing shatter-proof glass by uniting two sheets of glass with an intermediate layer of celluloid or similar material under heat and pressure until they became firmly bonded together into one piece. Duplate argued that this process was not novel as it had been previously described in other patents and publications, but the Court disagreed stating that while others may have suggested using heat and pressure to unite layers of materials, none specifically taught how these steps could be applied to produce laminated safety glass as described in the disputed patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Duplate Corporation et al. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there had been an actual invention made by Triplex. He contended that merely combining two existing processes, without creating something new and inventive, should not be considered as an invention worthy of a patent protection under U.S law. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how the court applied its own precedents regarding patents and stressed on the importance of maintaining high standards for what constitutes an 'invention' in order to prevent stifling competition and innovation within industries.