In the case of Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Company, 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kendall. The dispute arose when Kendall claimed that he had invented a new and useful improvement in looms for weaving pile fabrics and filed a patent application for it on November 19, 1895. However, his claim was contested by the American Automatic Loom Company who argued that they were already using this technology before Kendall's filing date. They presented evidence to prove their prior use which included testimony from employees and physical exhibits such as models and drawings. The court found inconsistencies in the company’s evidence regarding dates of creation or modification of these exhibits which led them to question its credibility. Furthermore, some testimonies contradicted each other making them unreliable as well. Consequently, due to lack of convincing proof from the company about their prior usage claims against Kendall's invention before his filing date; coupled with questionable credibility issues surrounding their evidences - both documentary & oral testimonies; The Supreme Court decided in favor of Mr.Kendall thereby upholding his patent rights over said improvements made on looms used for weaving pile fabrics.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Kendall and against the American Automatic Loom Company for patent infringement, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant differences between Kendall's patented invention and the device produced by the loom company, enough so as not to constitute an infringement on Kendall's patent rights. They believed that these differences were overlooked or minimized by both courts' rulings. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain aspects of patent law had been interpreted and applied in this case - particularly those related to novelty and non-obviousness requirements for patents - arguing instead for a stricter interpretation more consistent with previous precedents set forth by earlier Supreme Court decisions on similar matters.