In the case of Otis Company v. Ludlow Manufacturing Company in 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a patent dispute between two companies over an invention related to elevator technology. The Otis Elevator Company claimed that Ludlow Manufacturing had infringed upon its patented safety device for elevators, which was designed to prevent free falls. However, Ludlow argued that their design was sufficiently different and did not infringe on the patent held by Otis. The court found in favor of Ludlow Manufacturing, ruling that there were significant differences between the designs of both companies' devices and therefore no infringement occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Otis Company v. Ludlow Manufacturing Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Ludlow Manufacturing contradicted established legal principles regarding patent rights and infringed upon Otis' right to use its own patented technology. The dissenting justices contended that while Ludlow had indeed obtained a patent for an improved version of Otis' elevator brake system, this did not give them exclusive rights over all versions of the technology. They maintained that by preventing Otis from using their original design, which differed significantly from Ludlow’s improvements and predated their patent application, the Court was effectively granting monopoly power to one company at another's expense - something they believed went against both common law traditions and statutory provisions governing patents.