In the case of Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., 1971, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a matter related to patent infringement and antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Reliance Electric Company, alleged that Emerson had infringed upon their patent for an electric motor part and sought damages as well as injunctive relief against further infringement. On the other hand, Emerson counterclaimed with allegations that Reliance's patent was invalid due to prior art and also accused them of violating antitrust laws by attempting to monopolize trade in certain types of motors through enforcement of its patents. The District Court ruled in favor of Emerson on both counts - it found no evidence supporting claims made by Reliance about patent infringement while upholding accusations regarding violation of antitrust laws against them. However, when appealed before the Supreme Court, this decision was reversed partially; although they agreed with lower court’s ruling about non-infringement but disagreed over findings related to anti-trust violations stating that there wasn't enough evidence proving such charges conclusively.

In the dissenting opinion for Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a patent infringement suit to proceed despite an earlier settlement agreement between the parties undermines principles of finality and respect for private agreements. The dissent emphasized that when two sophisticated corporate entities voluntarily enter into a contract, they should be held accountable for their decisions unless there is evidence of fraud or mistake. In this case, no such evidence existed; instead, both companies had access to skilled legal counsel and were fully aware of potential risks associated with their agreement at the time they entered into it. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view, allowing one party to later challenge this agreement in court simply because circumstances have changed or because they now regret their initial decision sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize future business transactions.