In the case of Textile Machine Works v. Louis Hirsch Textile Machines, Inc., 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent for an improvement on a textile machine could be upheld if it did not significantly change the original invention's function or operation. The plaintiff, Textile Machine Works, held patents for machines that produced knitted fabric and claimed that Louis Hirsch Textile Machines had infringed upon their patents by producing similar machines with minor modifications. The defendant argued that these changes were significant enough to warrant a new patent and thus they were not infringing upon any existing ones. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that while there may have been some similarities between both parties' machines, there were also substantial differences which made them distinct from each other; therefore no infringement took place. This ruling established precedent regarding what constitutes as 'significant' when considering improvements or modifications to patented inventions.

In the dissenting opinion for Textile Machine Works v. Louis Hirsch Textile Machines, Inc., it was argued that there was no infringement of patent rights by the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff's claim to a new and useful improvement in textile machinery was not valid because their alleged invention did not meet all necessary criteria for novelty and non-obviousness required under patent law. They contended that any skilled mechanic familiar with this type of machinery could have made similar modifications without exercising inventive skills or judgment beyond what would be expected in his trade or profession. Therefore, they disagreed with majority’s decision to uphold the lower court's ruling in favor of plaintiff on grounds of patent infringement.