In the 1903 case of Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Company, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff, Kirby, held patents for certain improvements in soda fountains and alleged that the defendant, American Soda Fountain Company had infringed upon these patents by manufacturing similar products without permission. The lower court ruled in favor of Kirby but on appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision was reversed. The Supreme Court found that while there were similarities between both parties' designs, they were not identical nor did they function identically - thus no patent infringement occurred. Furthermore, it was determined that some elements of Kirby's design were already known or used before his supposed invention; hence he could not claim exclusive rights to them under patent law.

In the dissenting opinion for Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that found in favor of American Soda Fountain Company. He argued that there was no evidence proving that Kirby had breached his contract by selling soda fountain equipment similar to those produced by American Soda Fountain Company after leaving their employment. According to him, it would be unjust and against public policy to prevent an individual from using skills and knowledge acquired during employment once they leave a company unless explicitly stated in a non-compete agreement which wasn't present here. Therefore, he believed the judgment should have been reversed as it infringed on personal liberty and restricted free trade without sufficient cause or justification.