In the case of Electric Gas-Lighting Company v. Tillotson in 1890, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights for an invention related to electric gas-lighting technology. The plaintiff, Electric Gas-Lighting Company, alleged that Tillotson had infringed upon their patent rights by using and selling their patented invention without permission or license. However, Tillotson argued that he was not infringing because his product did not use all elements of the claimed invention and therefore did not fall within its scope. The court held in favor of Tillotson stating that infringement occurs only when all components of a patented device are used without authorization from the patent holder. Since some parts were omitted in Tillotson's design it didn't constitute as infringement under existing laws at that time. This ruling clarified how courts should interpret claims regarding patents - specifically emphasizing on considering each element mentioned within them while determining cases about potential infringements.

In the dissenting opinion for Electric Gas-Lighting Company v. Tillotson, it was argued that the plaintiff's patent should not be invalidated due to lack of novelty. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant differences between the patented invention and its alleged predecessors, which made it a new and useful improvement in gas-light technology. They contended that these improvements had been clearly described in the patent application, making them easily distinguishable from previous designs or models. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of prior art references as disclosing all elements of plaintiff's claim; instead asserting those references did not teach or suggest combining their teachings in way claimed by plaintiff’s patent. Therefore, they concluded that such an invention deserved protection under U.S Patent Law.