In the case of Topliff v. Topliff and Another, 1891, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff claimed that he had invented a new type of grain harvester and was granted a patent for it in 1867. However, his brother later made improvements to this invention and obtained his own patents in 1870 and 1873 respectively. When the plaintiff tried to sell machines incorporating these improvements without permission from his brother or paying him royalties, he was sued for infringement by his brother's assignees. The court ruled against the plaintiff on two grounds: first, because he did not have any right to use or sell machines embodying improvements patented by others; secondly because even if such right existed under common law (as claimed by him), it would be overridden by statutory provisions which clearly stated that every patentee had exclusive rights over their inventions unless they chose otherwise. This decision reinforced principles of intellectual property law - specifically regarding patents - affirming an inventor's exclusive control over their creation as well as its modifications unless explicitly waived off.

In the dissenting opinion for Topliff v. Topliff, Justice Bradley argued that the patent in question should not have been granted because it did not introduce any new or useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. He believed that the patented invention was simply a combination of old elements already known and used by others. The majority's decision to uphold this patent would set a dangerous precedent where anyone could obtain a monopoly on an idea merely by combining existing technologies in slightly different ways. This would stifle innovation and competition rather than promote them as intended by patent law. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of "inventor" under U.S law which allowed someone who had merely improved upon an existing invention to be considered its inventor.