In the case of Temco Electric Motor Company v. Apco Manufacturing Company, 1927, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent held by Temco for an electric motor design had been infringed upon by Apco. The lower courts had previously ruled in favor of Temco, finding that Apco's product did indeed infringe on their patented design. However, upon review at the Supreme Court level, it was determined that there were significant differences between the two designs and therefore no infringement occurred. Specifically, they found that while both motors functioned similarly and achieved similar results - namely converting electrical energy into mechanical motion - they accomplished this through different means and mechanisms which constituted enough difference to avoid infringement under patent law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of TEMCO ELECTRIC MOTOR COMPANY v. APCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Temco guilty of patent infringement, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were significant differences between Temco's design and Apco’s patented invention, enough to conclude that no infringement had occurred. They contended that the majority failed to properly consider these differences and instead focused too heavily on similarities between the two designs. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given by the majority to expert testimony presented during trial proceedings; arguing it should not have been used as definitive proof of infringement but rather as one piece among many evidences considered in reaching a verdict.