The U.S. Supreme Court case McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman in 1897 revolved around patent rights and their transferability after a company's reorganization. The McCormick Harvesting Machine Company had previously held patents for certain machinery, but upon the company's dissolution and subsequent reformation as a new entity, it was questioned whether these patent rights were still valid under the new organization or if they reverted to the original inventors (Aultman & others). The court ruled that once granted, a patent is deemed personal property of the holder and cannot be revoked by any action of Patent Office without consent from its owner; thus, it remains with them even through corporate restructuring unless explicitly transferred otherwise. This decision reinforced protection for intellectual property holders against arbitrary changes in ownership due to business transitions.

In the dissenting opinion for McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman, Justice Harlan argued that a patent owner should not lose their rights to an invention simply because they sought and failed to secure an extension of the patent term from the Patent Office. He believed that such a decision would discourage inventors from seeking extensions, even when they might be warranted due to circumstances beyond their control (such as delays in bringing products to market). Furthermore, he contended that it was unfair for someone who had invested time and resources into developing an invention - often at great personal risk - could suddenly find themselves without any legal protection against copycats if their application for extension was denied. This view diverged significantly from the majority opinion which held that once a patent owner applied for reissue or extension of his/her original patent and it got rejected by Patent Office then all rights under original patents were surrendered automatically.