In the Singer Manufacturing Company v. Cramer case of 1903, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Singer Manufacturing Company. The dispute arose when Cramer claimed that Singer had infringed on his patent for an improvement in sewing machines - a claim which was initially upheld by lower courts. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was determined that there were no new inventions or improvements made by Cramer to warrant a patent; he merely used old devices and combined them into one machine without any novel result or function being produced from this combination. Therefore, since no new invention existed within his work as per Section 4886 of Revised Statutes (which states only 'new and useful' inventions can be patented), it could not infringe upon any existing patents held by others including those owned by Singer Manufacturing Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Singer Manufacturing Company v. Cramer, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an invention that was not new or novel contradicted established principles of patent law. He contended that the sewing machine in question did not introduce any new principle or mode of operation and merely combined existing elements in a way which would be obvious to anyone skilled in the art. Therefore, he believed it should not have been eligible for patent protection under U.S law which requires inventions to be novel and non-obvious. Moreover, he expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on competition and innovation by allowing companies to monopolize basic technological concepts through strategic use of patents.