The U.S. Supreme Court case Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., et al., in 1940 revolved around patent rights and their infringement. The plaintiff, Schriber-Schroth Company, alleged that the defendants had infringed on its patents for a piston ring used in internal combustion engines by manufacturing and selling similar products without permission or license from the plaintiff company. However, the court ruled against Schriber-Schroth Company stating that there was no patent infringement as claimed because the defendant's product did not use any new or novel invention protected under the plaintiff’s patents but rather utilized prior existing technology which is not subject to patent protection laws.

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 failed to meet the constitutional requirement of novelty and usefulness. He contended that there was no substantial difference between this invention and previous ones, thus failing to justify its protection under patent law. Furthermore, he criticized the Court's reliance on expert testimony in determining whether or not an invention is novel enough for a patent, arguing that such decisions should be based solely on objective evidence rather than subjective opinions of experts who might have vested interests in their testimonies' outcomes.