In the case of Henry Ford & Son, Inc. v. Little Falls Fibre Company et al., 1929, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Henry Ford & Son, Inc., reversing a lower court's decision that had found them guilty of patent infringement. The dispute centered around a patented process for making hard fibre board from waste materials such as straw and cornstalks which was owned by Little Falls Fibre Company. The company accused Ford Motor Co.'s subsidiary (Henry Ford & Son) of using this patented process without permission to produce similar material for use in their automobiles' interiors. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence proving that Henry Ford & Son used exactly the same method described in the disputed patent; they merely employed an analogous but not identical procedure to achieve similar results - something which is permissible under patent law principles. Therefore, it concluded that there was no violation or infringement on part of Henry Ford & Sons towards Little Falls’ patents rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Henry Ford & Son, Inc. v. Little Falls Fibre Company et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an automobile part was incorrect because it did not meet the standard of invention required by law. He believed that combining existing technologies in a new way should not be enough to warrant a patent unless there is some unexpected or surprising result from their combination. In this case, he felt that using known materials and methods to create an improved version of an existing product (a clutch plate) did not constitute such innovation as would justify granting exclusive rights through a patent. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how courts had previously interpreted what constitutes 'invention', leading him to call for clearer guidelines on this matter.