In the 1922 case of Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights related to motion picture technology. The Lumiere brothers, who were pioneers in early cinema, claimed that Mae Edna Wilder, Inc had infringed on their patented method for producing color films by using a similar process without permission. However, the court ruled against them and found no infringement occurred because there was enough difference between both methods used to produce colored films - while Lumiere's method involved applying colors directly onto film negatives before development and printing; whereas Wilder’s technique applied colors after developing and printing positives from black-and-white negatives which did not infringe upon or use any part of Lumière's patented process.

The dissenting opinion in the Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Lumiere was flawed. The dissent contended that Lumiere had not violated any patent rights of Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., as claimed by the plaintiff and upheld by both lower courts and now Supreme Court majority. They believed there were significant differences between Lumier’s product and those patented by Mae Edna Wilder, which should have been enough to dismiss claims of infringement. Furthermore, they disagreed with how previous cases were interpreted and applied in this situation; arguing for a more nuanced understanding of patent law where minor alterations or improvements on an existing invention do not necessarily constitute violation of original patents rights if these changes bring about new utility or function.