The U.S. Supreme Court case Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company in 1893 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies. The plaintiff, Morgan Envelope Company, claimed that Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co had infringed on their patent for toilet paper rolls with perforations to allow easy tearing of individual sheets - an invention they held exclusive rights to manufacture and sell under Patent No. 465,588 issued on December 22nd, 1891. However, the defendant argued that this concept was not new or novel as it had been previously used in other products like wrapping papers and therefore could not be patented exclusively by anyone. The court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that even though there might have been minor differences between previous uses of perforation technology and its application to toilet paper by Morgan Envelope Co., these changes were too trivial to warrant a unique patent claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company argued that the patent granted to Albany was valid and should be upheld. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that the invention lacked novelty, asserting instead that it represented a significant improvement over previous designs for toilet paper rolls. He contended that while individual elements of Albany's design may have been known before, their combination in this particular way resulted in a new and useful product deserving of patent protection. Furthermore, he rejected arguments about obviousness as irrelevant since they were not raised at trial or considered by lower courts. In his view, overturning this patent would discourage inventors from seeking patents on improvements to existing products - an outcome contrary to the goals of U.S.'s intellectual property laws designed to promote innovation.