In the case of Peters Patent Corp. v. Bates & Klinke, Inc., 1934, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent held by Peters Patent Corporation for a process of making insignia devices was valid and had been infringed upon by Bates & Klinke, Inc. The lower courts had ruled in favor of Peters Patent Corporation on both counts but this decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that while there were similarities between the processes used by both companies, these did not constitute infringement as they fell within what is known as "the range of mechanical skill." Furthermore, it also questioned whether or not Peter's patent should have been granted in the first place due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness - two key requirements for obtaining a patent. Therefore, despite acknowledging that some aspects might be considered novel when viewed individually (such as using certain materials), when taken together with other elements already well-known in industry practice at that time (like heating and pressing), they could not justify granting an exclusive right over such common practices through a patent. Thusly ruling against Peter's claim for infringement and questioning its original validity altogether.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Peters Patent Corp. v. Bates & Klinke, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Peters Patent Corporation was incorrect because it failed to properly consider the validity of their patent claims. The dissent believed that there were significant questions regarding whether or not Bates & Klinke had infringed upon these patents and felt that this issue should have been more thoroughly examined before making a final judgment. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted certain aspects of patent law, arguing for a stricter interpretation which would have favored Peters Patent Corporation's claim over Bates & Klinke’s defense.