In the 1908 case of Edward Murphy, 2d. v. John Hofman Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties between inventor Edward Murphy and manufacturing company John Hofman Co. The court had to determine whether an agreement made by both parties was valid or not. According to this agreement, Murphy would receive royalty payments from the sale of his patented invention manufactured by Hofman Co., even after his patent expired. However, when the patent expired, Hofman stopped paying royalties arguing that they were no longer obligated as per their contract's interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edward Murphy stating that according to their contract's terms and conditions; he was entitled to continue receiving royalty payments post-expiration of his patents because it was part of their original understanding when entering into the agreement.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Edward Murphy, 2d. v. John Hofman Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Murphy was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and equity. The dissent pointed out that there had been an agreement between both parties which should have been honored by the courts, regardless of any subsequent disagreements or misunderstandings about its terms or conditions. Furthermore, they contended that even if there were some ambiguity in the contract language, this should not automatically favor one party over another but rather be resolved through further negotiation or arbitration as per standard legal practice. They also criticized what they saw as an overly rigid interpretation of property rights on part of their colleagues which ignored broader social and economic considerations at stake in such disputes.