In the case of Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co., 1946, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies in relation to baking pans and their manufacturing process. The court ruled that even if a company has not directly infringed on another's patent rights, they can still be held liable for contributory infringement if they knowingly sell components specifically designed for use in an infringing product or process. In this case, Edward Katzinger Company was found guilty of contributory infringement because it sold machines knowing that these would be used by bakeries to produce bread pans which were patented by Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co.

In the dissenting opinion for Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that had been in public use for more than two years prior to its application contradicted established legal principles and precedent. The dissent contended that this ruling would create uncertainty around what constitutes "public use" and could potentially stifle innovation by allowing inventors to delay filing patents while still profiting from their inventions, thereby extending their monopoly beyond the statutory period intended by Congress. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of such a system, where individuals or companies could deliberately withhold information about an invention’s usage in order to extend their exclusive rights over it.