In the case of Eastman Kodak Co. et al. v. Gray, 1933, the Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies in the photography industry: Eastman Kodak and C.R. Gray Company. The issue at hand was whether or not certain patents held by C.R. Gray were infringed upon by products manufactured and sold by Eastman Kodak. C.R.Gray had patented a method for developing photographic film that involved using chemicals to create an image on light-sensitive paper or film - this process is known as "developing". They claimed that their specific method was unique and protected under patent law. Eastman Kodak argued that they did not infringe upon these patents because their own developing process was different enough from C.R.Gray's to be considered separate and distinct. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Eastman Kodak, stating that while both processes achieved similar results (the development of photographic images), they did so through sufficiently different means such that no infringement took place.

In the dissenting opinion for Eastman Kodak Co. et al. v. Gray, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Eastman Kodak Company and its co-defendants was incorrect because it failed to properly consider whether or not there had been an infringement of patent rights by the defendants in this case. The dissenting justices believed that the patented device at issue did not meet all of the necessary criteria for patentability as outlined under U.S law, specifically novelty and non-obviousness requirements, thus making any alleged infringement moot point. They also disagreed with how evidence presented during trial proceedings were interpreted by both lower courts and their fellow Supreme Court Justices in reaching their conclusions about liability for patent infringement.