The Lovell-McConnell Manufacturing Company v. Automobile Supply Manufacturing Company case in 1914 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies. The plaintiff, Lovell-McConnell, alleged that the defendant, Automobile Supply, had infringed on its patented design for an automobile wheel. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that there was no infringement as their product did not copy any novel features from Lovell-McConnell's patented design and thus did not violate any patent rights. Furthermore, it was found that some elements claimed to be unique by Lovell-McConnell were already present in prior art or previous designs which invalidated those claims of uniqueness under patent law.

In the dissenting opinion for Lovell-McConnell Manufacturing Company v. Automobile Supply Manufacturing Company, the justice argued that there was no infringement of patent rights by the defendant. The justice believed that while both parties' devices performed similar functions and achieved similar results, they did so through different means and mechanisms. Therefore, according to this view, it would be incorrect to say that one device is a mere equivalent or imitation of another when their internal workings are fundamentally distinct from each other. This perspective emphasizes an interpretation of patent law where protection extends only to specific methods or processes invented rather than broad concepts or end results achieved.