In the case of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Gridiron Steel Co., the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent held by Jones & Laughlin for a method of making steel pipe fittings was valid and enforceable against Gridiron, who they alleged had infringed upon their patent rights. The lower courts had found in favor of Jones & Laughlin, but on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. They ruled that while it is possible to obtain a patent for an innovative process or method under U.S law, such patents must meet certain criteria - including novelty and non-obviousness - which were not met in this instance as similar methods were already known within the industry at the time when Jones & Laughlin filed their application for a patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Gridiron Steel Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim against Gridiron Steel Company was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of prior art and its application in this case. The dissenting justices believed that the patented process used by Jones & Laughlin had already been disclosed in previous patents, making it unpatentable under U.S law which prohibits awarding patents for inventions not considered novel or non-obvious at their time of filing. They also disagreed with the majority's view on how much weight should be given to commercial success as evidence of non-obviousness, arguing that such factors should only play a secondary role when determining whether an invention is truly innovative and deserving of patent protection.