In the Meyerheim v. Robertson case of 1891, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Meyerheim, alleged that Robertson had infringed on his patented invention for an improvement in sewing machines by using and selling it without permission. However, Robertson argued that he was not infringing because he had made modifications to the design which constituted a new and distinct machine rather than an infringement of Meyerheim's original patent. The court ruled in favor of Robertson stating that while there were similarities between both designs, they were not identical nor did they operate identically; hence no infringement occurred. This decision underscored the principle that minor changes or improvements to existing patents do not necessarily constitute infringement if these alterations result in a fundamentally different product or process.

The dissenting opinion in the Meyerheim v. Robertson case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Robertson and against Meyerheim on a matter related to property rights, was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court during its proceedings, including misinterpretations of law and evidence. They contended that these mistakes led to an unjust outcome for Meyerheim who had rightful claims over certain properties but was denied due process because of these procedural errors. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's affirmation of this flawed judgment and instead advocated for a retrial or reconsideration where proper legal standards would be applied correctly.