In the 1891 case of Patent Clothing Company, Limited v. Glover, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for an improved method of making cuffs and collars on shirts. The Patent Clothing Company (PCC) had purchased a patent from its inventor and subsequently sued Glover for infringement. However, Glover argued that he was using a different process to make his products which did not infringe upon PCC's patent rights. The court ruled in favor of Glover stating that while both processes produced similar results, they were fundamentally different methods; hence there was no infringement by Glover on PCC’s patented process. This ruling emphasized the principle that patents protect specific methods or processes rather than general outcomes or end products.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Patent Clothing Company, Limited v. Glover, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Glover was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there had been an error in interpreting patent law and its application to this particular case. They contended that Patent Clothing Company should have been granted their patent because they met all necessary requirements under existing laws at the time of filing. Furthermore, they disagreed with how prior art was evaluated by both courts and felt it did not invalidate Patent Clothing Company’s claim as suggested by others involved in this litigation process.