In the case of Kokomo Fence Machine Company v. Kitselman, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Kokomo Fence Machine Company, alleged that Kitselman had infringed on their patented design for a machine used to manufacture wire fencing. However, Kitselman argued that he was not infringing because his machine did not use all aspects of the patented design and therefore constituted an improvement rather than an infringement. The court ruled in favor of Kokomo Fence Machine Company stating that even though there were differences between the two machines, they were still fundamentally similar and thus it was indeed a case of patent infringement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kokomo Fence Machine Company v. Kitselman argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the nature and purpose of patent law, which is designed not only to protect inventors but also to promote innovation and progress. The dissent contended that by upholding a broad interpretation of Kokomo's patent rights, the Court was effectively stifling competition and hindering technological advancement. Furthermore, they believed that there were significant differences between Kokomo’s machine and Kitselman’s device sufficient enough for them not to be considered identical under patent law standards. They disagreed with majority's view on what constituted an infringement upon a patented invention arguing it would discourage future inventions due its restrictive nature.