In the Selden v. Montague case of 1903, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to steam heating apparatuses. The plaintiff, Selden, alleged that Montague had infringed on his patent by manufacturing and selling devices similar to his patented design without permission. However, Montague argued that he did not infringe upon any patents as his device was different from what was described in Selden's patent claim. The court ruled in favor of Montague stating that while both inventions served the same purpose and used similar mechanisms; they were fundamentally different designs. The court emphasized that a patent protects only the specific structure or method claimed by its inventor and does not extend to all possible ways of achieving a particular result or function. This ruling reinforced the principle that patents are granted for specific inventions rather than general ideas or functions; thus providing clarity on how future disputes regarding potential infringement should be evaluated.

In the dissenting opinion for Selden v. Montague, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that denied Selden's claim on an invention patent. He argued that it was not fair or just to deny someone their rightful claim simply because they were unable to provide sufficient evidence of originality at trial due to circumstances beyond their control. In this case, he believed that Selden had indeed invented and patented his design before Montague but was unable to prove it because some of his records had been destroyed in a fire. Therefore, according to Holmes, the Court should have given more weightage towards circumstantial evidence rather than relying solely on direct proof of originality.