In the case of Schunk v. Moline, Milburn and Stoddard Company in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Schunk had patented an improvement to a type of wheel used for agricultural machinery which he claimed was infringed upon by Moline, Milburn and Stoddard Company. The defendant argued that their product did not infringe because it didn't include all elements described in Schunk's patent claim. However, the court held that even if one element is left out or substituted with something else but still performs substantially the same function as outlined in the original patent claim then it can be considered infringement under doctrine of equivalents principle. Therefore, despite minor differences between products they were found guilty of infringement due to overall similarities.

In the dissenting opinion for Schunk v. Moline, Milburn and Stoddart Company, the justice argued that there was a lack of evidence to prove that Schunk had knowledge of the patent when he began using it in his business. The majority's decision relied heavily on an assumption about what Schunk should have known rather than concrete proof of his awareness or intent to infringe upon a patent. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “use” under patent law as it pertained to this case; they believed that merely having patented items in one’s possession did not constitute use if those items were not actively being employed for their intended purpose. In essence, they felt that mere ownership without application should not be grounds for infringement charges.