Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Company v. Challenge Corn-Planter Company was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1910. The case involved a dispute between two companies over the patent rights to a corn-planter. Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Company had obtained a patent for a corn-planter in 1891, and Challenge Corn-Planter Company had subsequently obtained a patent for a similar device in 1895. Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Company sued Challenge Corn-Planter Company for patent infringement, claiming that Challenge Corn-Planter Company's device was an infringement of their patent. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Challenge Corn-Planter Company, finding that their device was not an infringement of Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Company's patent. The Court held that the two devices were not substantially similar, and that Challenge Corn-Planter Company's device was a new and distinct invention. The Court also held that the two patents were not in conflict, as the two devices were not substantially similar and did not perform the same function. This ruling established the precedent that two patents can be valid even if they are for similar inventions, as long as the inventions are not substantially similar and do not perform the same function.

In the dissenting opinion for Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Company v. Challenge Corn-Planter Company, Justice Brewer argued that the patent in question was invalid because it did not meet all of the requirements set forth by Congress to be considered a valid patent. He noted that while some of these requirements had been met, such as novelty and utility, others had not been met. Specifically, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial to show that the invention claimed in the patent was an improvement over existing technology or processes; instead, it appeared to simply be a copy of another machine already on sale in stores. Furthermore, he contended that even if this requirement were satisfied, there still remained other elements necessary for validity which were lacking from this particular case - namely proof of sufficient description and enablement so as to allow someone skilled in the art to make use of said invention without undue experimentation or guesswork. As such Justice Brewer concluded his dissent with a call for further investigation into whether or not all criteria required by Congress have indeed been fulfilled before granting any patents going forward.