In the case of Riverbank Laboratories v. Hardwood Products Corp., 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Riverbank Laboratories for a method of treating wood to make it more resistant to decay and insects was valid or not. The defendant, Hardwood Products Corporation, argued that they had been using this process prior to Riverbank's patent application and thus the patent should be invalidated due to lack of novelty. The court ruled in favor of Hardwood Products Corp., finding that there was sufficient evidence showing their use of this process before Riverbank filed its patent application. Therefore, under U.S law which states that an invention must be novel at the time it is patented, Riverbanks' claim lacked novelty making their patent invalid.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Riverbank Laboratories v. Hardwood Products Corp., 1955, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for a method of treating wood was incorrect. The dissent believed that this process did not meet the requirements for novelty and inventiveness necessary for patent protection. They contended that it was merely an application of well-known scientific principles and techniques, which should be available to all without restriction. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition and innovation if such basic methods could be monopolized through patents. This view held that granting exclusive rights over fundamental processes would stifle rather than promote progress in science and useful arts - contrary to the purpose of patent law as defined by U.S Constitution.