In the case of Keystone Manufacturing Company v. Adams in 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights. The plaintiff, Keystone Manufacturing Company, claimed that Adams had infringed upon their patented design for an improvement to lamp burners and sought damages. However, Adams argued that he was not infringing because his product did not include all elements of the claim as required by law for infringement to occur. The court agreed with Adams' argument and held that there was no infringement since his product did not contain every element specified in the patent claim. This ruling reinforced the principle that each element stated in a patent is deemed material; if any part is left out or changed substantially from what's described in claims when making or using it without permission from owner then it does not constitute an infringement.

In the dissenting opinion for Keystone Manufacturing Company v. Adams, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring safety appliances on all trains operating within its borders infringed upon federal authority over interstate commerce. The dissent contended that while states have the power to regulate matters of local concern, they cannot interfere with national regulation of interstate commerce. In this case, since many trains crossing Pennsylvania were involved in interstate travel, their equipment and operation fell under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view, state laws imposing additional requirements were invalid as they conflicted with Congress’s exclusive power over such matters.