The Matter of Christensen Engineering Company, 1903, was a case before the US Supreme Court that revolved around patent rights. The company had patented an invention for improving steam engines and sued another firm for infringement. However, the court found that while there were similarities between the two designs, they weren't identical and thus did not constitute infringement. Furthermore, it was determined that Christensen's design wasn't entirely original as it incorporated elements from previous patents without significant modification or improvement. Therefore, their patent claim was deemed invalid due to lack of novelty in their invention.

The dissenting opinion in the Matter of Christensen Engineering Company case argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of bankruptcy law. The dissenting justices believed that a claim against an insolvent company should not be considered as contingent simply because it was unliquidated or undetermined at the time when proceedings were initiated. They contended that such claims, even if they are disputed, should still be provable and allowable under bankruptcy laws unless there is explicit statutory language to exclude them. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's view on how to treat claims arising from contracts where performance is yet due; they held these should not automatically be deemed non-provable merely due to their future nature. In essence, this minority opinion advocated for a more inclusive approach towards creditors' rights within insolvency contexts.