The Mantle Lamp Co. v. Aluminum Products Co., 1936, is a U.S Supreme Court case that revolved around patent infringement issues. The Mantle Lamp Company held patents for lamp burners and mantles which they claimed were infringed upon by the Aluminum Products Company's manufacturing of similar products. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Mantle Lamp), but this decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds that there was no actual infringement since Aluminum Product’s designs were not identical to those patented by Mantle Lamp, despite some similarities in function and design principles used. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Circuit court's decision stating that while it may be possible for different devices to perform essentially similar functions or achieve same results through somewhat similar methods, such similarity does not constitute patent infringement unless one device is an imitation or copy of another as described in its specific claims within a given patent.

The dissenting opinion in the Mantle Lamp Co. v. Aluminum Products Co., 1936 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was any novelty in the design of the lamp burner at issue, which is a key requirement for patent protection. The dissent pointed out that similar designs had been used before and were well-known within industry circles, thus negating any claims of originality or uniqueness on part of Mantle Lamp Company. Furthermore, they contended that even if some aspects of this particular design were new, these changes did not significantly improve upon existing models nor contribute anything substantial enough to warrant exclusive rights through a patent grant.