In the Goshen Manufacturing Company v. Hubert A. Myers Manufacturing Company et al., 1916, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for a certain type of plow was valid or not. The plaintiff, Goshen Manufacturing Company, claimed that their patent had been infringed upon by the defendants, Hubert A. Myers Manufacturing Company and others involved in manufacturing similar products. However, after examining evidence from both sides and considering prior patents on similar devices as well as common knowledge within the industry at that time period; it became clear to the court that there were no new elements or combinations present in Goshen's design which would warrant granting them exclusive rights through a patent protection under existing laws of intellectual property rights at that time period . Therefore ,the court ruled against Goshen stating their claim for infringement invalid due to lack of novelty in their invention.

The dissenting opinion in the Goshen Manufacturing Company v. Hubert A. Myers Manufacturing Company case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found for the defendant on grounds of patent invalidity due to lack of novelty and invention, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was sufficient evidence showing distinctiveness and innovation in the plaintiff's patented design for a corn planter device, thus it should be considered valid under patent law standards at that time. They believed this innovative aspect had been overlooked by both courts' rulings and therefore disagreed with their conclusion about its invalidity based on alleged lack of novelty or inventiveness.