In the case of The Anaconda et al. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 1943, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Sugar Refining Company (ASR). The dispute arose when ASR refused to pay for a shipment of sugar from Cuba that was seized by the United States government during World War II before it could be delivered. Anaconda and other parties involved in shipping and insuring the cargo sued ASR for payment, arguing that risk passed to ASR once they loaded onto ships at Cuban ports as per their contract terms. However, citing 'force majeure' clause which frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond their control occurs, such as war; ASR argued they were not liable since seizure happened due to wartime measures enacted by US Government - an unforeseen event outside its control. The court agreed with this argument stating that under these circumstances where delivery became impossible due to governmental action related directly with war efforts; risk did not pass on to buyer until actual physical delivery had been made.

The dissenting opinion in the case of The Anaconda et al. v. American Sugar Refining Co., argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of patent law and could potentially stifle innovation. They contended that the court had failed to properly apply the doctrine of equivalents, which allows for minor variations in a patented invention without constituting infringement. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "inventive step," arguing it was too narrow and restrictive. This, they believed, would discourage inventors from making improvements on existing patents out of fear their work would not be considered sufficiently inventive to warrant protection under patent law.