The U.S. Supreme Court case George A. Fuller Company v. Otis Elevator Company in 1917 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies over elevator technology. The plaintiff, George A. Fuller Company, alleged that Otis Elevator had infringed on their patented design for an automatic leveling device used in elevators to stop them level with each floor of a building without manual control by an operator or passenger - Patent No: 1,084,502 issued January 20th, 1914 to Charles G Hall and assigned to the Fuller company. Otis argued that they were not infringing because their system was fundamentally different from what was claimed in the patent; it did not use any mechanical means but rather relied on electrical controls which automatically stopped the car at predetermined levels. The court ruled in favor of Otis Elevator Co., stating that there was no infringement as its mechanism differed significantly from what was described and claimed under Hall's patent held by Fuller Co.. This ruling emphasized how crucial specific language is when drafting patents and affirmed that even if two devices perform similar functions they are not necessarily infringing if their methods differ.

In the dissenting opinion for George A. Fuller Company v. Otis Elevator Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that Otis was not liable for damages caused by an elevator it had installed in a building owned by Fuller. He argued that there existed a contractual obligation between Otis and Fuller which required Otis to maintain the elevator in safe working condition, regardless of whether or not they were explicitly informed about any defects or malfunctions. According to him, this duty did not cease when control of the premises was transferred from one party to another; rather it continued until such time as explicit notice was given terminating their responsibility over maintenance and safety issues related to their product installation.