In the 1903 case of Ex Parte Frasch, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a patent dispute involving sulfur mining technology. German-born American chemist Herman Frasch had developed an innovative method for extracting sulfur from underground deposits using hot water and steam, which he patented in both the United States and Europe. However, his application for a similar patent in Canada was rejected due to prior use by another party. Subsequently, when Frasch attempted to enforce his U.S. patents against alleged infringers who claimed that they were merely using Canadian technology already in public domain, he found himself facing charges of perjury and fraud on the Patent Office. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Frasch after determining that there was no evidence supporting these allegations or proving any fraudulent intent on his part during the patent application process. The court also clarified that even if someone else had previously used similar methods elsewhere (like Canada), it did not invalidate a U.S.-granted patent unless such usage occurred within America itself before its issuance date.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Frasch, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been granted because there was no new invention or discovery. The justice believed that the process of extracting sulphur from underground deposits using superheated water had already been known and used before. Therefore, according to him, what Frasch did was merely apply an old method to a new subject matter which does not constitute an invention under patent law. He also pointed out that granting such patents would hinder rather than promote progress by allowing monopolies over natural resources based on mere application of existing knowledge.