In the case of Sargent & Lahr v. Herrick & Stevens in 1910, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiffs, Sargent and Lahr, claimed that they had been granted exclusive rights to manufacture and sell a certain type of door check (a device used to prevent doors from slamming shut). They alleged that Herrick and Stevens were infringing on their patent by producing similar devices. However, the defendants argued that the plaintiff's patent was invalid because it lacked novelty - an essential requirement for obtaining a patent - as similar devices already existed prior to their application. The court ruled in favor of Herrick and Stevens after examining evidence showing previous existence of such devices before Sargent & Lahr’s supposed invention. It held that while minor improvements or modifications can sometimes be patented if they produce new results or uses; merely changing materials or proportions without altering its function does not qualify for a new invention under law. This decision reinforced principles regarding patents: namely, originality is key when claiming inventions; mere alterations do not constitute novel creations worthy of exclusive production rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Sargent & Lahr v. Herrick & Stevens, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Herrick and Stevens was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which should have resulted in a new trial being granted to Sargent and Lahr. They contended that certain evidence presented by Herrick and Stevens had been improperly admitted, while other key pieces of evidence from Sargent and Lahr were wrongly excluded. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages had been calculated in this case involving patent infringement claims related to an invention for manufacturing paper boxes. In their view, these procedural missteps substantially impacted the fairness of proceedings at trial level leading them to conclude differently than their peers on Supreme Court bench.