In the case of Singer Manufacturing Company v. June Manufacturing Company in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Singer. The dispute centered around patent rights for sewing machines, with Singer alleging that June had infringed upon their patents by producing similar machines. The court found that while some elements of a machine may not be individually patented due to lack of novelty or invention, when combined into an original and functional whole they can indeed constitute a valid patent claim - as was the case with Singer's sewing machine design. Therefore, even though individual parts used by June were not protected under patent law, their combination which resulted in replication of functionality constituted infringement on Singers' patents.

The dissenting opinion in the Singer Manufacturing Company v. June Manufacturing Company case argued that the patent rights of Singer were not infringed upon by June's actions. The justice disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constituted an 'invention' and believed that a mere change in shape or proportion should not be considered as such, unless it produces a new mode of operation leading to distinct results. He further contended that if every alteration could be patented, then it would lead to endless litigation and stifle innovation rather than promote progress. Moreover, he asserted that there was no evidence showing any deceptive intent on part of June Manufacturing Company to infringe upon Singer's patent rights intentionally; hence they shouldn't be held liable for infringement.