In the 1942 case Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., Inc., the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent owner could sue for infringement after selling his patent rights to another party. The plaintiff, Freeman, had sold his patents to Bee Machine Company but later sued for infringement when he believed that others were using his inventions without permission. However, since he no longer held the rights to these patents, it was determined by the court that he did not have standing to bring an action of infringement against any third parties. The court ruled in favor of Bee Machine Company and dismissed Freeman's claim on grounds that only current owners or licensees can file lawsuits over alleged infringements.

In the dissenting opinion for Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., Inc., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that was not novel or non-obvious contradicted established principles of patent law. He contended that the patented device, which involved a new combination of old elements, did not produce any surprising or unexpected results and thus lacked inventiveness required for patentability. The mere aggregation of several parts performing functions they had previously performed does not constitute invention in his view. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on commercial success as evidence of novelty and non-obviousness, arguing it should be considered only when there is doubt about these criteria being met otherwise. In conclusion, he believed this ruling would encourage monopolies based on trivial modifications to existing technology rather than promoting genuine innovation.