In the case of Radio Corporation of America v. Raytheon Manufacturing Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Raytheon, upholding a lower court's decision that Radio Corporation had infringed on one of Raytheon's patents related to radio technology. The patent was for a method and apparatus for producing oscillations in vacuum tubes, which is integral to radio transmission and reception. The Supreme Court found that while both companies' technologies were similar, they were not identical; however, this did not absolve Radio Corporation from infringement as their product still used the same principle patented by Raytheon even though it achieved it through slightly different means.

In the dissenting opinion for Radio Corporation of America v. Raytheon Manufacturing Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that was not novel or non-obvious contradicted established principles of patent law. He contended that the patented device, a type of vacuum tube used in radio broadcasting, did not represent any significant advancement over existing technology and thus should not have been eligible for patent protection. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on expert testimony to determine whether or not an invention is obvious, arguing this approach undermines legal standards by allowing technical experts rather than judges to make determinations about what constitutes a valid patent. In his view, such decisions should be based solely on objective legal criteria rather than subjective assessments of technological merit.