In the 1932 case Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jenkins Petroleum Process Company, upholding a lower court's decision that Sinclair Refining Company had infringed upon a patent owned by Jenkins for an oil refining process. The main issue was whether or not there was infringement and if so, how much damages should be awarded to the plaintiff (Jenkins). The Court found that while both companies used similar processes to refine oil, Sinclair’s method involved additional steps which were not covered under Jenkins' patent; however, these extra steps did not change the fact that they still utilized and thus infringed on Jenkin's patented process without permission. Therefore, it held that even though all elements of a claim may not have been literally copied but if substantial equivalent parts are present then it can constitute as infringement under Doctrine of Equivalents.

In the dissenting opinion for Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of the patent in question. He contended that the original patent did not cover all methods of achieving a certain result, but only one specific method outlined within it. Therefore, he believed that Sinclair had not infringed upon Jenkins' rights by using a different method to achieve this same result and should not be held liable for damages or required to cease their operations as ordered by lower courts. Furthermore, Justice Stone criticized his colleagues for failing to properly consider whether or not Jenkins' process was truly novel and non-obvious at its time of invention - key requirements for any valid patent under U.S law.