In the Shaw v. Kellogg case of 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in California. The plaintiff, Shaw, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands under an Act of Congress passed in July 1866 which granted rights to mine valuable mineral deposits found on public lands upon compliance with certain conditions. He argued that his right was superior to any claim by Kellogg who held a patent from the United States for these same lands issued after Shaw's acquisition but before he had fully complied with all conditions required by law. The court disagreed with Shaw’s argument and upheld Kellogg’s claim based on his patent grant from the government which gave him full legal title over those particular lands including minerals therein. The court reasoned that until one has fully complied with all statutory requirements necessary for obtaining a valid mining claim under federal law, they do not have exclusive possession or right against subsequent bona fide purchasers like Kellogg who acquire their titles directly from the government.

In the dissenting opinion for Shaw v. Kellogg, 1897, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply the law regarding patent rights. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Shaw had indeed infringed upon Mr. Kellogg's patent by manufacturing a product using a process patented by Kellogg without his permission or license to do so. They contended that even though Shaw may have made some modifications in producing his version of the product, he still used essential elements of Kellogg’s patented process which constitutes infringement under existing laws on patents at that time.