In the 1914 case of L. E. Waterman Company v. Modern Pen Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to patent infringement and competition law. The plaintiff, L.E Waterman Company, a leading manufacturer of fountain pens had patented a particular design for pen caps which prevented leakage and drying out when not in use. They accused Modern Pen Company of infringing on this patent by producing similar products without their permission or license. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that they had copied or used any proprietary technology from the plaintiff's designs; rather they were simply using common knowledge available within public domain to produce their own version of leak-proof pen caps. This ruling established an important precedent regarding patents: just because two products are functionally identical does not mean one is necessarily infringing upon another’s patent rights if it can be proven that each product arrived at its functionality independently through different means.

The dissenting opinion in the case of L.E. Waterman Company v. Modern Pen Company argued that the majority's ruling was too broad and could potentially stifle innovation and competition within industries. The dissenting justices believed that while it is important to protect patent rights, this should not be done at the expense of hindering progress or preventing others from improving upon existing inventions. They contended that a patent holder does not have exclusive rights over all possible variations or improvements on their invention, especially if these modifications are non-obvious and constitute an inventive step themselves. Therefore, they disagreed with the decision to uphold Waterman's patent infringement claim against Modern Pen Company as they felt it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving patents and technological advancements.