The U.S. Supreme Court case Munter v. Weil Corset Company, Inc., 1922 revolved around a patent dispute between the two parties involved. The plaintiff, Munter, had patented a corset design and accused Weil Corset Company of infringing on this patent with their own product designs. The lower courts ruled in favor of the defendant (Weil), stating that they did not infringe upon Munter's patents as their products were significantly different from those protected by his patents. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was held that there was no infringement because there was no new invention or discovery in what Munter claimed to be his exclusive right under his patent grant; rather he merely used old devices to produce an improved result which is not enough for claiming exclusivity under law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Munter v. Weil Corset Company, Inc., argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply patent law. The dissent contended that the patent at issue should not have been invalidated on grounds of anticipation or obviousness as there were significant differences between the patented invention and prior art references cited by defendant. They believed these differences constituted an inventive step, thus making it eligible for patent protection. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was evaluated during trial proceedings; arguing that expert testimony had been undervalued while undue weight had been given to other pieces of evidence which lacked credibility or relevance in their view. This led them to conclude that a grave error had occurred resulting in injustice towards plaintiff who deserved legal recognition for his innovative contribution.