In the case of Odell v. F.C. Farnsworth Company et al., 1918, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to telephone technology. The plaintiff, Odell, had sold his patent rights to the defendants but later claimed that they had not fulfilled their contractual obligations and therefore he was entitled to reclaim his patents. The court ruled in favor of the defendants on two key issues: first, it found that there was no evidence supporting Odell's claim that he could revoke his sale due to non-performance by the buyers; secondly, it held that even if such a right existed under contract law principles generally applicable at state level (which was disputed), federal patent law would preempt any such right because allowing inventors to take back their inventions after selling them would undermine certainty and stability in commercial transactions involving patents.

In the dissenting opinion for Odell v. F.C. Farnsworth Company et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to rule in favor of Odell, who had been injured while operating a machine at work. He argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the company or its employees were negligent in their duty towards ensuring safety measures and precautions at work, nor did they have any reason to foresee such an accident occurring due to normal operation of machinery involved in this case. Furthermore, he contended that it was not reasonable for employers to be held responsible for every injury sustained by their employees during working hours without clear proof of negligence or failure on part of employer’s responsibility towards maintaining safe working conditions. In his view, accidents can happen even under safest conditions and holding employers liable would create undue burden on them which is neither fair nor justified.