In the 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case Higgins v. Keuffel, the court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights for an invention related to drawing instruments used by architects and engineers. The plaintiff, Higgins, claimed that he was entitled to royalties from sales of these instruments based on his ownership of a reissued patent (a new issue of an original patent with modifications). However, the defendant argued that this reissue was invalid because it expanded upon the original claims in violation of federal law which prohibits broadening patents through reissues after two years from their initial issuance. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant's argument and held that Higgins' reissued patent was indeed invalid due to its expansion beyond what had been originally patented. Therefore, no royalties were owed by Keuffel under this invalidated claim.

The dissenting opinion in the Higgins v. Keuffel case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for an improvement on a drawing instrument was incorrect. The dissent contended that the supposed "improvement" was merely an obvious adjustment any skilled mechanic could make, and thus did not meet the criteria of novelty required for patent protection. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent by lowering standards for what constitutes as innovation worthy of patents, potentially leading to abuse of patent laws and stifering genuine invention and competition.