In the case of Milcor Steel Co. v. George A. Fuller Co., et al., 1941, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Milcor Steel Company for a metal lath used in building construction had been infringed upon by George A. Fuller Company and others involved in constructing buildings using similar materials without permission or payment to Milcor. The court found that while there were similarities between the products, they were not identical and therefore did not infringe on the patent rights of Milcor Steel Company as claimed by them under their Patent No 1,578,609 issued March 30th,1926 . This decision upheld an earlier ruling from lower courts which also ruled against infringement claims made by Milcor.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Milcor Steel Co. v. George A. Fuller Co., et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Milcor liable for patent infringement, was incorrect due to an erroneous interpretation of patent law principles and precedents. The dissent contended that the patented invention at issue did not meet necessary criteria for novelty and non-obviousness as it merely combined existing elements without producing any new or unexpected results - a requirement under established patent law doctrine for such combinations to be deemed inventive and thus eligible for protection. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on contributory infringement liability, arguing that selling standard equipment capable of being used in infringing ways should not automatically make one liable if there is also substantial non-infringing use possible; rather intent or knowledge must be proven.