In the 1897 case of Hyer v. Richmond Traction Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for electric railway technology. The plaintiff, Hyer, claimed that he had invented and patented an improved system for transferring electrical current to moving cars on a trackway in 1888. He alleged that his invention was being used by the defendant company without permission or compensation. However, upon examination of evidence and previous patents related to similar technologies dating back as far as 1879, it became clear that Hyer's invention wasn't entirely original but rather an improvement on existing systems. Therefore, while he held valid patents for these improvements specifically (which were not proven to be used by Richmond Traction), he did not hold exclusive rights over all aspects of this type of electrical transfer system in railways overall. The court ruled against him stating: "the complainant has failed to establish any right which entitles him either at law or equity." This decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between wholly new inventions and incremental improvements when determining patent infringement cases.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hyer v. Richmond Traction Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider existing laws regarding negligence. The dissent emphasized that, under Virginia law, a company is not absolved from liability simply because an employee acted outside of their authority or violated instructions. It further contended that if there was evidence suggesting the possibility of negligence on part of the defendant's employees which could have contributed to causing injury, then it should be up to a jury - not judges - to decide whether such negligence actually occurred and caused harm. Therefore, according to this view, dismissing cases without allowing them go before juries undermines justice by preventing potential victims from having their claims fully heard and evaluated based on all available evidence.