In the case of Rosenthal v. Coates in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights. The plaintiff, Rosenthal, claimed that he had been granted a patent for an improvement to fountain pens and accused Coates of infringing upon his patent rights by manufacturing similar pens without permission. However, the defendant argued that Rosenthal's claim was invalid as it lacked novelty because another inventor named Goodyear had previously patented a similar invention years before him. The court found in favor of Coates after examining both patents closely and determining that there were no significant differences between them except for minor details which did not constitute new inventions or improvements. Therefore, they concluded that Rosenthal's claim lacked novelty as required under Patent Law and dismissed his suit against Coates.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosenthal v. Coates, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting gambling on commodities futures contracts contradicted previous rulings of the court and violated principles of contract law. The dissent contended that these types of contracts were not inherently harmful or immoral, but rather served an important function in facilitating commerce by allowing producers and consumers to hedge against price fluctuations. It further asserted that if such agreements were deemed illegal simply because they involved elements of chance, then many other common business practices would also have to be outlawed. Therefore, according to this view, the law at issue overstepped its bounds by interfering with private contractual arrangements without sufficient justification.