In the case of George Van Camp & Sons Company v. American Can Company et al., 1928, the Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies over an invention for sealing cans. The plaintiff, George Van Camp & Sons Co., alleged that American Can Co. had infringed on their patent rights by using their patented technology without permission or compensation. However, the defendant argued that they had independently developed a similar method before the plaintiff's patent was granted and thus were not infringing upon any rights. The court ruled in favor of American Can Co., stating that independent discovery and use prior to another party obtaining a patent does not constitute infringement under U.S law. They also noted that there was no evidence to suggest bad faith or unethical behavior on part of American Can Co.. This ruling reinforced principles regarding patents and intellectual property rights in America - specifically emphasizing originality as well as good faith efforts towards innovation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of George Van Camp & Sons Company v. American Can Company et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for an invention related to canning processes was incorrect. The dissent believed that the patent should not have been granted because it did not meet the requirement of novelty, as required by law for patents. They contended that there were prior instances where similar methods had been used and thus, this method could not be considered new or novel. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly the patent claims were interpreted by both lower courts and felt such broad interpretation would stifle competition and innovation within industry sectors reliant on these types of manufacturing processes.