The U.S. Supreme Court case Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., et al., 1938, revolved around a patent dispute involving an automobile piston design. The plaintiff, Schriber-Schroth Company, alleged that the defendants had infringed upon their patented invention of a particular type of piston for internal combustion engines and sought damages and injunctions against them to prevent further infringement. However, the defendants argued that they were not infringing on any valid patents as the plaintiff's patent was invalid due to prior art - meaning similar designs existed before the filing date of this patent in question. The court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that there was indeed evidence proving existence of prior art which invalidated Schriber-Schroth’s claim over exclusive rights to manufacture pistons using such design features described in their disputed patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an automobile piston was incorrect because it violated principles of patent law by granting monopoly rights over a product that lacked novelty and inventiveness, two essential criteria for obtaining patents. He contended that previous designs had already incorporated similar features as those claimed in the contested patent, thus making it unpatentable due to lack of originality or improvement upon existing technology. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on expert testimony which he believed was biased towards supporting claims of novelty where none existed. In his view, this case represented an instance where courts were too deferential to experts rather than applying their own judgment based on established legal standards and precedents.