In the case of Rubber Tire Wheel Company v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in 1913, the Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two tire companies. The plaintiff, Rubber Tire Wheel Company, alleged that Goodyear had infringed on their patent for a certain type of rubber tire wheel design. However, after examining the evidence presented by both parties, the court ruled in favor of Goodyear. It was determined that while there were similarities between the designs patented by each company, they were not identical nor did they function in exactly the same way; therefore no infringement had occurred. Furthermore, it was found that some aspects claimed as unique to Rubber Tire's design actually existed prior to their patent application which weakened their claim further.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rubber Tire Wheel Company v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider whether or not there had been an infringement on a patent. The justice believed that the lower court had correctly found no infringement, as both products were fundamentally different despite superficial similarities. They contended that while both products served similar functions, they achieved these results through distinct methods and mechanisms which should have precluded any claims of patent violation. Furthermore, they asserted that even if there were some elements of similarity between the two designs, this did not necessarily constitute a breach of patent rights since such similarities could be coincidental or incidental rather than deliberate attempts at imitation or copying.