In the case of Marshall v. Burtis in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to bicycle pedals. The plaintiff, Charles E. Marshall, claimed that he had invented and patented a unique type of pedal and accused George W. Burtis of infringing upon his patent by manufacturing similar pedals without permission or license from him. However, Burtis argued that Marshall's patent was invalid because it lacked novelty as there were prior existing patents with similar designs before his application date. The court sided with Burtis after examining evidence presented which showed previous patents having identical features as those claimed by Marshall in his own design; hence they concluded that these earlier inventions anticipated (pre-dated) Marshall’s claims thereby rendering them unpatentable due to lack of novelty. This decision underscored the importance of thorough investigation into "prior art" when applying for a patent and affirmed that no one can claim exclusive rights over something already known or used before their supposed invention.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Marshall v. Burtis argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-residents from taking, killing or selling certain types of game within its borders was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues. The dissent contended that this law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution because it discriminated against out-of-state citizens by denying them rights enjoyed by residents. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation that states have an inherent right to protect their natural resources as part of their police power, arguing instead that such laws should be subject to constitutional scrutiny for potential discrimination against non-residents.