In the case of Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 1937, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies over an invention related to lubricating systems for internal combustion engines. The plaintiff, Lincoln Engineering Co., claimed that Stewart-Warner Corp had infringed on their patent rights by using and selling devices that were based on their patented invention without permission or license. However, the defendant argued that they did not infrive because the plaintiff's patent was invalid due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness as required under U.S Patent Law. The court ruled in favor of Stewart-Warner Corp., finding that there was prior art which anticipated Lincoln’s patents rendering them invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness. This decision upheld previous rulings from lower courts which also found in favor of Stewart-Warner Corporation.

In the dissenting opinion for Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that was already in public use contradicted established legal principles and precedent. He contended that there was substantial evidence showing the invention had been used publicly before it was patented, which should have invalidated the patent under U.S law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "public use," arguing they set an unreasonably high bar by requiring proof of widespread or commercial use rather than any accessible or observable usage by members of the public. This, according to him, undermined one of purposes behind patent laws: preventing individuals from monopolizing inventions already available to society at large.