The Southern Construction Co., Inc. v. Pickard case in 1962 revolved around a dispute over patent infringement and the validity of said patents. The plaintiff, Southern Construction Company, alleged that Pickard Engineering Company had infringed upon their patented design for an earth-moving scraper device used in construction work. On the other hand, Pickard argued that the patents held by Southern were invalid due to prior art - meaning similar designs existed before Southern's patent was issued - thus making them unpatentable under U.S law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pickard Engineering Company stating that one of the key elements claimed as unique by Southern Construction was indeed present in previous designs and therefore not novel or non-obvious as required by patent laws for granting protection rights. This decision upheld lower court rulings which also found no evidence of infringement on part of Pickard because they did not use any new or distinct method different from what already existed at the time when these patents were granted.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Southern Construction Co., Inc. v. Pickard argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held Southern Construction liable for damages caused by their negligence, was incorrect. The dissent contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligence on part of Southern Construction and thus they should not be held responsible for any damages incurred by Pickard Engineering Co. They further asserted that even if some degree of carelessness could be attributed to Southern Construction, it did not necessarily equate to legal liability as per existing laws and precedents at the time. The dissenters believed this judgment set a dangerous precedent where businesses could potentially face unwarranted lawsuits based on ambiguous or unsubstantiated claims of negligence.