The U.S. Supreme Court case New York Belting and Packing Company v. New Jersey Car Spring and Rubber Company in 1890 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies over vulcanized rubber products, specifically car springs. The plaintiff, New York Belting and Packing Co., alleged that the defendant had infringed on their patent rights by producing similar goods without permission or license to do so. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendant company stating that there was no infringement as they were using a different process for creating their product which did not violate any existing patents held by NYB&P Co.. This ruling emphasized that while patents protect specific processes or designs, they do not grant exclusive rights to produce all variations of a particular type of good.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Belting and Packing Company v. New Jersey Car Spring and Rubber Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the defendant (New Jersey Car Spring and Rubber Co.) was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made during trial proceedings which should have resulted in a new trial being granted to the plaintiff (New York Belting and Packing Co.). Specifically, they pointed out issues with jury instructions regarding patent validity as well as evidentiary matters related to expert testimony on patent infringement. They believed these procedural missteps had unfairly influenced the outcome of this case involving alleged violation of rubber patents held by both companies.