In the case of Gordon v. Warder, 1893, the United States Supreme Court examined a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Mr. Gordon, claimed that he had invented and patented an improvement to brick machines which was subsequently used by Mr. Warder without his permission or any compensation paid to him for its use - thus infringing on his patent rights under U.S law. The court ruled in favor of defendant Mr.Warder stating that no infringement occurred as the machine used by him did not include all elements described in plaintiff's claim within his patent application; therefore it wasn't identical nor equivalent to what was patented by Gordon. Furthermore, they clarified that even if certain components were similar between both machines (Gordon’s invention and Warder’s machine), this does not constitute a violation unless those parts are arranged in the same way as specified in original inventor's claims. This ruling reinforced principles regarding interpretation of patents: each element stated within a claim is critical and must be present exactly as described for another device or method to be considered an infringement upon said patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Gordon v. Warder, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Gordon was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law principles. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Gordon had not breached his contractual obligations because he had acted in good faith and within reasonable limits when he sold his shares in the company without first offering them back to other shareholders as stipulated by their agreement. They contended that this clause should be interpreted more flexibly, taking into account practical considerations such as market conditions at the time of sale which might have made it impossible or impractical for him to comply fully with its terms. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that damages were appropriate since there was no evidence showing actual harm suffered by other shareholders from this alleged breach of contract.