The Grinnell Washing Machine Company v. E.E. Johnson Company case in 1917 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies. The plaintiff, Grinnell Washing Machine Co., alleged that the defendant, E.E. Johnson Co., had infringed upon their patented washing machine design which featured an improved wringer mechanism for removing water from clothes after they were washed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that while there was no question about the validity of Grinnell's patent, it did not cover all types of wringers and therefore could not be used to prevent others from making improvements on different types or styles of wringers as long as these did not copy or imitate those specifically claimed by Grinnell's patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Grinnell Washing Machine Company v. E.E. Johnson Company, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness. The justice believed that there were significant differences between the patented invention and prior art, which made it novel and non-obvious to a person skilled in the art at that time. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "invention", arguing that even small improvements can be considered inventions if they provide new and useful results. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled by courts previously, suggesting a need for clearer guidelines on patentability criteria.