The Richmond Screw Anchor Company v. United States case in 1927 revolved around the issue of patent infringement. The Richmond Screw Anchor Company claimed that the U.S government had infringed on their patented design for a screw anchor device used to secure tents and other structures, which was utilized during World War I by the Army. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that while it is possible for private individuals or corporations to hold patents, they cannot sue the federal government for damages due to patent infringement under sovereign immunity unless Congress has waived this immunity. In essence, without explicit permission from Congress allowing such lawsuits, any use of patented inventions by the U.S Government would not be considered an infringement.

In the dissenting opinion for Richmond Screw Anchor Company v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's interpretation of the patent law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that a patented device should not be considered as infringing upon another patent if it is used in a way that does not utilize or involve the specific invention claimed in said other patent. In this case, he believed that although Richmond Screw Anchor Company's devices were similar to those patented by Concrete Steel Co., they did not use or embody any new principle or mode of operation invented by Concrete Steel Co., thus there was no infringement. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies within previous court decisions regarding what constitutes an 'invention' under patent law and called for clearer guidelines on this issue.