In the case of Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., a dispute arose over patent rights for an invention related to oyster dredging equipment. The plaintiff, Healy, claimed that he had invented and patented a new and useful improvement in oyster-dredges which was then used by the defendant, Sea Gull Specialty Co., without his permission thus infringing upon his patent rights. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that there was no infringement as their product did not use or embody any novel features from Healy's design. Furthermore, it found out that similar designs were already present before Healy’s alleged invention thereby questioning its novelty aspect too. Thus this case highlighted important aspects regarding patent laws such as necessity for novelty and non-infringement of existing patents.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law banning out-of-state insurance companies from doing business within its borders was incorrect. The dissenters believed this ruling violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. They contended that an individual state should not have authority to regulate or prohibit commercial activities crossing its boundaries as it interferes with free trade among states and potentially leads to economic protectionism. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that insurance is not commerce; instead, they asserted it is indeed a form of commerce because it involves contracts and transactions across state lines. Therefore, according to their interpretation of constitutional law, only federal government has jurisdiction over such matters.