In the case of Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 1896, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Emory S. Hopkins had been granted a patent for an improvement in machines used to manufacture nails and tacks. He alleged that William H.Grimshaw was infringing on his patent by using his invention without permission or compensation. The court found that while there were similarities between both parties' machines, they functioned differently enough to not constitute infringement upon Hopkins's patented design. It was determined that Grimshaw’s machine did not use any new mechanical elements nor combine old ones in such a way as to produce an identical result or effect as described in Hopkins’ claim. Therefore, it could not be said that Grimshaw infringed upon the plaintiff's right under his letters-patent since he didn't make use of the same means or methods claimed therein by him for producing certain results which constituted its novelty and utility. Thus,the decision favored defendant Grimshaw stating no infringement occurred despite similarities because their functioning mechanisms differed significantly.

The dissenting opinion in the Hopkins v. Grimshaw case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Hopkins guilty of fraud and deceit for selling land he didn't own, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed there wasn't enough evidence presented at trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hopkins intentionally deceived Grimshaw when he sold him the property. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to certain pieces of evidence over others during deliberations. Furthermore, they felt it was unfair for Hopkins to be held solely responsible for any misunderstandings or miscommunications about who owned the land since both parties had legal representation throughout their transaction process.