In the 1901 case of Excelsior Wooden Pipe Company v. Pacific Bridge Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent infringement. The Excelsior Wooden Pipe Company claimed that the Pacific Bridge Company had infringed on their patented process for creating wooden pipes by using metal bands to bind them together instead of wooden staves as was traditionally done. However, the court ruled in favor of Pacific Bridge Co., stating that they did not infringe upon any patents held by Excelsior because their method differed significantly from what was described in Excelsior's patent claim. Specifically, it noted that while both methods involved binding materials together to form a pipe, there were significant differences between how each company achieved this result - one used metal bands and another used wooden staves - which meant they could not be considered identical processes under patent law.

The dissenting opinion in the Excelsior Wooden Pipe Company v. Pacific Bridge Company case argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of contract law and its application to this particular case. The dissent believed that there was a clear, binding agreement between both parties which should have been upheld by the court. They contended that any ambiguities or uncertainties within the contract were not sufficient grounds for nullifying it entirely, as they could be clarified through further negotiation or arbitration between both parties involved. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that one party had acted fraudulently during negotiations; instead arguing there was no substantial evidence to support such claims. Thus, according to them, dismissing these allegations would have led to a different outcome - upholding rather than voiding of said contract.