The U.S. Supreme Court case Office Specialty Manufacturing Company v. Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Company in 1898 revolved around a patent dispute between the two companies. The plaintiff, Office Specialty Manufacturing, claimed that Fenton Metallic had infringed on their patented design for a particular type of office desk and sought an injunction to prevent further infringement as well as damages for past violations. However, the defendant argued that they had not violated any patents because their product was significantly different from the one described in Office Specialty's patent claim. After reviewing both products and considering previous court rulings on similar cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fenton Metallic stating that there were enough differences between the two designs to conclude no infringement occurred.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Office Specialty Manufacturing Company v. Fenton Metallic Manufacturing Company argued that the patent for a certain type of cabinet should not have been invalidated. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that there was no novelty or invention in combining two existing types of cabinets into one, and thus it did not warrant a patent. He believed that this combination resulted in an entirely new product which had unique features and advantages over its predecessors, thereby meeting the criteria for obtaining a patent under U.S law at that time. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous court decisions regarding patents on combinations of old elements to create new products.