The Supreme Court case Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Company in 1891 revolved around a patent dispute between the two bicycle manufacturing companies. The plaintiff, Pope Manufacturing Company, accused the defendant, Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Co., of infringing on their patented design for an "improved method of operating velocipedes," essentially bicycles. However, the court found that there was no infringement as both designs were fundamentally different and operated differently despite serving similar purposes. Furthermore, it was determined that Pope's claim to novelty in its patent was not valid since similar devices had been previously used and described in older patents. Therefore, the court ruled against Pope Manufacturing Co., stating they failed to establish any grounds for equity interference.

In the dissenting opinion for Pope Manufacturing Company v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Company, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of patent law and its application to this case. The dissenting justices believed that there was no infringement by Pope Manufacturing on Gormully & Jeffery's bicycle patents because they were not identical or equivalent inventions. They contended that a mere similarity between two products does not constitute an infringement under patent law; rather, one product must use the same means or methods as another patented invention to achieve the same result for it to be considered an infringement. Furthermore, they asserted that any improvements made by Pope should have been seen as legitimate advancements in technology rather than infringements on existing patents. In essence, these justices felt strongly about protecting innovation and competition within industries from being stifled by overly broad interpretations of patent laws.