In the case of Ford Motor Co. v. Gordon Form Lathe Co., 1943, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Gordon Form Lathe Company (GFLC) had been infringed upon by Ford Motor Company's use of a similar device in their manufacturing process. GFLC claimed that Ford's use of an automatic screw machine, which performed operations identical to those covered under its patent, constituted infringement. The court ruled in favor of Ford Motor Co., stating that while the machines may perform similar functions and produce similar results, they were not identical in design or operation method as required for patent infringement claims under existing law at that time. The court further noted that patents are granted for specific methods and designs rather than general concepts or end products; thus even if two devices achieve the same result through different means, it does not constitute infringement.

In the dissenting opinion for Ford Motor Co. v. Gordon Form Lathe Co., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim against Ford was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was any actual novelty in the patented device. He believed that just because an invention is new, useful and unobvious does not mean it should be granted a patent if its individual components are already known within the industry. In this case, he felt that all of the elements of Gordon's lathe were well-known prior to his supposed invention; thus, no real innovation had occurred warranting protection under patent law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition and technological progress by granting patents too easily.