In the 1933 case of Radio Corporation of America et al. v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a patent held by RCA for an electronic amplification device known as a triode vacuum tube, which was crucial in early radio technology. The court ruled that even though some elements of the invention had been previously described or used, it was still valid because no one before De Forest (the inventor) had made them work together to amplify electrical signals effectively and reliably. This decision established important precedents regarding how courts should evaluate whether an invention is "obvious" under patent law: they must consider not only what individual components were already known but also whether their combination would have been obvious to someone skilled in that field at the time.

In the dissenting opinion for Radio Corporation of America et al. v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc., Justice Stone argued that the majority had failed to apply a consistent standard in evaluating patent validity and infringement claims. He contended that they were too quick to uphold RCA's patents despite substantial evidence suggesting their invalidity due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness - key requirements for patentability under U.S law. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's approach towards interpreting patent claims broadly when assessing infringement but narrowly when considering validity issues, which he saw as inherently contradictory and unfair towards alleged infringers like REL who are left uncertain about what constitutes an infringement or not. Lastly, Justice Stone expressed concern over potential monopolistic consequences arising from such inconsistent judicial treatment favoring large corporations like RCA at the expense of smaller competitors like REL.