The Supreme Court case Latimer v. United States in 1911 revolved around a patent dispute concerning an improvement to incandescent lamps. Frederick W. Latimer, Jr., the plaintiff, was the assignee of Upton's patent for an improved method of manufacturing these lamps which involved coating the lamp filament with graphite to increase its durability and efficiency. The defendant, General Electric Company (represented by the US government), argued that this process was not novel as it had been used previously in arc lights and hence did not warrant a patent grant under existing laws. The court ruled against Latimer stating that his claim lacked novelty because carbonizing or graphitizing filaments were already known processes at the time Upton filed his application for a patent; therefore he could not claim exclusive rights over them just because they were being applied to incandescent lamps instead of arc lights. This ruling established important precedents regarding "obviousness" and "novelty" in American Patent Law - two key criteria required for granting patents.

In the dissenting opinion for Latimer v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The dissenting justices believed that a person should only be held criminally liable if they knowingly and intentionally commit an illegal act. In this case, Mr. Latimer had no knowledge or intent to defraud anyone when he made his tax return; he simply followed instructions given by a government official who misinterpreted the law himself. Therefore, according to these justices, punishing him would not serve justice but rather discourage citizens from seeking advice from government officials in fear of potential prosecution due to their mistakes or misunderstandings.