In the case of Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu et al., 1938, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute over lead-acid batteries used in submarines and automobiles. The Electric Storage Battery Company claimed that Takehiko Shimadzu had infringed on their patents by using an additive to improve battery performance, which they argued was covered under their existing patents for similar additives. However, Shimadzu countered that his additive was fundamentally different from those patented by the company as it involved a new chemical process not previously known or used in this context. The court ruled in favor of Shimadzu stating that while there were similarities between both processes, they were not identical and therefore did not constitute infringement. It further noted that even if two products perform similar functions or achieve similar results does not necessarily mean one is derived from another unless it's proven beyond doubt through evidence such as copying or imitation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect due to an overemphasis on minor differences between the patented invention and its alleged copy, while ignoring their fundamental similarities. The dissent pointed out that both devices served identical functions and operated based on similar principles, with only slight variations in design details which should not be enough to warrant a separate patent protection. It further criticized the court for failing to consider whether these small changes represented any significant improvement or innovation beyond what already existed in prior art, thus potentially stifering technological progress by granting monopolies too easily.