In the case of Leeds and Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a patent dispute between two companies involved in producing phonograph records. The Victor Talking Machine Company held patents for certain types of record production and sued Leeds and Catlin for infringement. The lower courts had found that these patents were valid and infringed upon by Leeds & Catlin Co., which appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that they did not infringe any existing patents because their method was different from what was patented by Victor. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of lower courts, ruling against Leeds & Catlin Co., stating that even though there might be differences in methods used, if it performs substantially same function or achieves same result as patented invention then it is considered an infringement under doctrine of equivalents. This case set important precedent regarding interpretation of patent law concerning 'equivalents', meaning products or processes are deemed infringing if they perform substantially similar functions in a similar way to achieve identical results as claimed invention.

The dissenting opinion in the Leeds and Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect. The dissent believed that the patents held by Victor Talking Machine were not valid because they did not represent new or novel inventions, but rather improvements on existing technology. They contended that these improvements should be considered part of public domain knowledge, available for any company to use and improve upon further without fear of legal reprisal. Furthermore, it was suggested that upholding such broad patent claims would stifle innovation and competition within the industry as companies could monopolize basic technological advancements through aggressive litigation strategies.