In the case of Holland Furniture Company v. Perkins Glue Company, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Perkins Glue Company. The dispute arose when Holland Furniture sued Perkins for patent infringement over a glue formula used to make veneer furniture. However, it was found that the patent had been issued based on false representations and concealment by Holland Furniture regarding their supposed invention's novelty and utility. Therefore, due to this fraudulent conduct during procurement of the patent, it was deemed unenforceable against any alleged infringers including Perkins Glue Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Holland Furniture Company v. Perkins Glue Company, Justice Holmes argued that the patent in question should not be invalidated on grounds of obviousness or lack of novelty. He contended that if a process was indeed so apparent and straightforward, it would have been discovered and utilized long before an individual sought to patent it. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that prior art rendered this invention unpatentable; instead, he believed these references did not teach or suggest the specific combination claimed by Perkins Glue Company. Thus, according to Justice Holmes' perspective, even though each component might have been known individually in previous works or patents (prior art), their unique assembly into a new product could still constitute an innovative step worthy of protection under patent law.