In the case of Iacurci v. Lummus Co., 1966, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Iacurci, alleged that he had invented and patented a process for producing ethylene from ethane gas and that Lummus Company had infringed upon his patent by using this process without permission or compensation. However, the court found in favor of Lummus Company on grounds that their method was not identical to Iacurci's patented invention but rather an improvement upon it which did not infringe any claim of the original patent. Furthermore, they ruled that even if there were similarities between both processes; since they were developed independently at around same time period (1940s), neither party could be held liable for infringement as per law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Iacurci v. Lummus Co., 1966, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. The dissent believed that there was a substantial federal question involved and thus, it should be within the Supreme Court's purview to hear this case. They contended that because Mr. Iacurci had been denied his constitutional right to due process by being deprived of property without just compensation, this constituted a significant federal issue worthy of review by the highest court in land. Furthermore, they disagreed with how lower courts interpreted and applied state law regarding lien rights which led them to conclude differently from those courts on whether or not Mr.Iacurci’s claim could stand under Ohio law.