The McCullough v. Kammerer Corporation case in 1946 revolved around the issue of patent infringement. The plaintiff, McCullough, alleged that Kammerer Corporation had infringed upon his patented invention for a rotary printing press machine. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kammerer Corporation stating that there was no evidence to prove any direct copying or imitation of McCullough's design by the defendant corporation. Furthermore, it was found that even if similarities existed between both designs, they were merely coincidental and not substantial enough to constitute an infringement on patent rights as per existing laws at the time.

In the dissenting opinion for McCullough v. Kammerer Corporation, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to dismiss McCullough's patent infringement claim was incorrect and unfair. He believed that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute, which should have been resolved by a jury rather than dismissed outright by the court. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes "prior use" under patent law, arguing that it was too narrow and failed to take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding Kammerer Corporation's alleged use of McCullough’s invention before his patent application date. In essence, Justice Murphy felt strongly that this case deserved a full trial where all evidence could be presented and evaluated properly.