In the 1895 case of McKee v. Latrobe, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding patent rights. The plaintiff, McKee, claimed that he had invented a certain type of pavement and received patents for it in 1870 and 1871. He alleged that Latrobe infringed upon his patent by using this method without permission or compensation to him. However, the defendant argued that they were not infringing because their method was different from what was described in McKee's patents. The court found in favor of Latrobe after examining both methods closely and determining there were significant differences between them; therefore no infringement occurred. Furthermore, they noted that even if there had been similarities between the two methods used for paving roads, it would still be necessary to prove whether these similarities constituted an infringement under law. This ruling emphasized how important detailed descriptions are within patents as well as careful examination when claims of infringement arise.

In the dissenting opinion for McKee v. Latrobe, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Baltimore city ordinance regulating street paving contracts violated principles of fair competition and free trade. The dissenting justices believed that by allowing the city to award exclusive contracts for this public work, they were essentially granting a monopoly which could lead to corruption and inefficiency in government operations. They also expressed concerns about potential infringement on individual rights as well as possible violation of equal protection under law since not all contractors had an equal opportunity to bid on these projects. Furthermore, they questioned whether such ordinances truly served public interest or merely favored certain businesses over others without any clear justification or benefit for citizens at large.