In the case of Loom Company v. Higgins, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a patent for a loom was valid. The patent was issued to one William Higgins in 1871 for a loom that could weave two or more colors of thread into a pattern. The Loom Company argued that the patent was invalid because the invention was not novel and had been in use prior to Higgins' patent. The Supreme Court found that the patent was valid and that Higgins was the first to invent the loom. The Court noted that the prior art did not show the same combination of elements as Higgins' invention and that the prior art did not show the same result. The Court also noted that Higgins had made improvements to the loom that were not shown in the prior art. The Court held that Higgins' patent was valid and that the Loom Company was not entitled to use the invention without paying Higgins for the patent. The Court also noted that the patent was valid even though the invention had been in use prior to Higgins' patent. This case established the principle that a patent is valid even if the invention has been in use prior to the patent, as long as the patentee is the first to invent the combination of elements that make up the invention.

In the case of Loom Company v. Higgins, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and did not take into account all relevant facts. He noted that while it is true that patent rights are limited to what is specified in the patent itself, this does not mean that any invention or improvement made after its issuance should be excluded from consideration. In his view, if an inventor has created something new and useful based on their own ingenuity and skill, then they should have some protection against others who may seek to copy or use their work without permission. Furthermore, he argued that such inventions can often provide great benefit to society as a whole by improving existing products or creating entirely new ones; thus denying inventors these protections would be detrimental both for them personally as well as for society at large.