In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., et al., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute involving pharmaceutical companies. The plaintiff, Eli Lilly & Co., held a patent for an antibiotic drug and accused Sav-On-Drugs and other defendants of infringing on this patent by selling their own version of the medication. The defendants argued that they were not in violation because Eli Lilly's patent was invalid due to obviousness - meaning it lacked sufficient innovation to warrant protection under law - as well as non-disclosure of best mode requirement which mandates inventors to disclose the best way known to them at time of filing application for performing invention . However, after reviewing evidence from both sides including expert testimonies regarding complexity involved in developing such drugs ,the court ruled in favor of Eli Lilly & Co., upholding its patent rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an old product simply because it had been purified was incorrect and set a dangerous precedent for future cases. The dissent contended that purification should not be enough to warrant a new patent unless it resulted in a change of identity or created something substantially different from what existed before. They believed this ruling would allow companies to extend their monopolies by making minor changes to existing products, stifering competition and innovation while increasing costs for consumers. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse of the patent system if such trivial alterations were deemed sufficient for granting patents.