In the case of Sperry Gyroscope Company v. Arma Engineering Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a patent held by Sperry for a ship stabilizer was infringed upon by Arma's similar device. The lower courts had ruled in favor of Sperry, finding that Arma’s product did infringe on their patent rights. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it was determined that while there were similarities between both devices and they served similar purposes (stabilizing ships), they operated based on different principles and mechanisms. Therefore, despite any superficial resemblances or functional equivalences between them, no infringement could be established as per existing patent laws which protect unique methods rather than general ideas or outcomes. Consequently, the court reversed previous rulings and decided in favor of Arma Engineering Company.

In the dissenting opinion for Sperry Gyroscope Company v. Arma Engineering Company, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been upheld due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness. The dissenting justices believed that the patented device, a gyrostabilizer for ships, did not present any new or innovative features compared to existing technology at the time of its invention. They contended that prior art had already disclosed similar devices with comparable functionality and thus, granting a patent would stifle competition without promoting innovation as intended by patent law. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of "invention" under U.S Patent Law arguing it overly broadened what could be considered an invention thereby undermining standards set forth in previous cases regarding patents' validity requirements such as novelty and non-obviousness.