The U.S. Supreme Court case Keller et al., Doing Business As Hartford Windshield Company, v. Adams-Campbell Company, Inc., et al., 1923 revolved around a patent dispute for an automobile windshield cleaner device. The plaintiffs (Keller and others) alleged that the defendants (Adams-Campbell Company and others) had infringed on their patented invention by manufacturing similar devices without permission or license to do so. However, the defendants argued that they were not in violation of any patents as their product was based on prior existing designs which were already available publicly before the plaintiff's patent was granted. In its decision, the court ruled in favor of Adams-Campbell Co., stating that there was no infringement because Keller’s patent did not introduce any new or novel idea; it merely combined old elements with no change in their respective functions - something which is not eligible for protection under patent law principles.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Keller et al., doing business as Hartford Windshield Company, v. Adams-Campbell Company, Inc., et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for an automobile windshield was incorrect. The dissent contended that the design of the windshield did not meet the criteria for novelty and non-obviousness required for patent protection. They believed that prior art existed which demonstrated similar designs and functionality before this particular invention was patented. Therefore, they asserted that granting such a broad scope of monopoly over common features found in many windshields would stifle competition and innovation within the industry without providing any significant benefit to society or advancement in technology.