In the 1908 case of Expanded Metal Company v. Bradford, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Expanded Metal Company, claimed that Bradford had infringed on their patent for a machine used to produce expanded metal sheets. However, Bradford argued that he was using his own patented machine which differed from the one owned by Expanded Metal Company in its method of operation and results produced. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant (Bradford), stating there was no infringement as both machines were distinctively different. The Supreme Court upheld this decision upon appeal. They agreed with the lower court's findings that although both machines performed similar functions and produced somewhat similar products, they did so through fundamentally different methods and mechanisms - thus not constituting an infringement on each other’s patents.

In the dissenting opinion for Expanded Metal Company v. Bradford, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. The dissenter believed that there were significant differences between the patented invention and its alleged predecessors which justified its novelty and therefore, protection under patent law. They emphasized on how these differences resulted in a more efficient product with superior qualities than those previously available. This view held that even if an invention is somewhat similar to existing products or ideas, as long as it provides new benefits or improvements over them, then it deserves to be recognized and protected by patents laws rather than being dismissed as unpatentable due to lack of novelty.