In the 1892 case of Krementz v. The S. Cottle Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent infringement. Krementz held a patent for an improvement in collar-buttons and claimed that The S. Cottle Company had infringed upon this patent by producing similar products without his permission or license to do so. However, the court found that there was no evidence to support these claims of infringement as it was determined that the defendant's product did not use or incorporate any features from Krementz's patented invention in their own design and manufacture process. Therefore, they were not guilty of infringing on his rights as a patent holder because they hadn't used his specific method or design but rather created their own unique version which didn't violate any existing patents.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Krementz v. The S. Cottle Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an improved collar-button was incorrect, as it violated established principles of patent law. They contended that the patented design did not meet the requirement for novelty and non-obviousness necessary for patent protection, as it merely combined existing elements in a manner obvious to anyone skilled in the art. Furthermore, they disagreed with granting monopoly rights over such a trivial improvement, arguing this would stifle competition and innovation rather than promote them as intended by patent laws. They also expressed concern about potential abuse of such broad patents by unscrupulous individuals seeking unjust enrichment at others' expense through litigation or threats thereof.