The U.S. Supreme Court case E.R. Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Work, 1934, revolved around a patent dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies over the production of adrenaline solution used in medical treatments. The plaintiff, E.R Squibb & Sons claimed that Mallinckrodt Chemical Works had infringed upon their patent rights by producing and selling an identical product without authorization or license from them. Mallinckrodt defended themselves on grounds that they were using a different process to produce the adrenaline solution which was not covered under Squibb's patents and hence did not constitute infringement. However, after examining both processes closely, it was found by the court that despite minor differences in procedure and terminology used to describe them, both methods essentially produced identical results - chemically pure adrenaline solutions for medicinal use. Therefore based on these findings and existing laws governing patent rights at the time; it was ruled by Justice Benjamin N Cardozo (who delivered majority opinion) that even though there may be multiple ways to achieve same end result (i.e., manufacture of medically pure adrenaline), if one method is already patented then any other similar method also falls within scope of original patent protection thereby making its unauthorized use illegal.

In the dissenting opinion for E.R. Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Work, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on a purified form of adrenaline went against precedent and could potentially stifle scientific progress. The dissenters believed that while the process used to purify adrenaline may be patentable, the end product itself should not be because it is naturally occurring in nature and therefore cannot be invented or discovered as required by patent law. They also expressed concern about granting exclusive rights over such an important medical substance, arguing this could limit access and hinder further research into its potential uses.