In the 1941 case Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corporation, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Ace Patents Corp for a punchboard device used in gambling was enforceable despite its use being illegal in some states. The court ruled that while it is possible for an invention to be patented even if its use may violate laws, such patents are not enforceable if their only significant use is one prohibited by law. In this instance, since the primary and intended purpose of the punchboard device was for gambling activities which were deemed illegal in many jurisdictions, enforcement of the patent would essentially condone and promote unlawful conduct. Therefore, although Ace Patents Corp's invention met all other criteria necessary to obtain a patent (novelty, non-obviousness etc.), they could not seek legal recourse against Exhibit Supply Co., who had been accused of infringing on their unenforceable patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corporation, Justice Frank Murphy disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that he believed lacked novelty and inventiveness. He argued that the device in question was merely a combination of old elements which had been used before in similar devices, thus it did not meet the criteria for patentability as set out by law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about granting monopolies through patents too easily and warned against stifling competition and innovation by protecting inventions that do not contribute anything new or useful to society.