In the case of New York Scaffolding Company v. Liebel-Binney Construction Company, 1920, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for an improved scaffolding device had been infringed upon by Liebel-Binney Construction Company. The patented device in question was designed to provide safety and convenience for workers on buildings under construction or repair. The court found that while there were similarities between the devices used by both companies, they were not identical nor did they function identically. Therefore, it could not be said that one company's use of their own unique scaffolding design constituted infringement on another's patent rights. This decision upheld previous rulings which stated that merely embodying principles or modes of operation outlined in a patent does not constitute infringement unless it also replicates specific means described and claimed within said patent.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Scaffolding Company v. Liebel-Binney Construction Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold the scaffolding company liable for damages resulting from a defective scaffold was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that since there was no evidence of negligence on part of the scaffolding company and they had not breached any contractual obligations, they should not be held responsible for accidents occurring due to inherent risks in construction work. They contended that such liability would unduly burden businesses by making them insurers against all possible accidents, regardless of fault or foreseeability. This interpretation could potentially stifle economic activity and innovation as companies may become overly cautious in their operations out of fear of litigation.