In the case of Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 1946, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent infringement had occurred. The plaintiff, Transparent-Wrap Machine Corporation (TWM), held patents for machines that wrapped packages in transparent film and claimed that Stokes & Smith Company infringed on these patents by manufacturing similar machines without their permission. However, the defendant argued that TWM's patents were invalid due to prior art - earlier inventions or ideas which are similar enough to challenge the originality of a new invention. The court ruled in favor of Stokes & Smith Company stating that there was indeed prior art which invalidated TWM’s claim to originality and thus its patent rights over such machinery could not be enforced against others including defendants like Stokes & Smith Co who manufactured similar devices independently from them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect, as it failed to consider whether or not there was any novelty in the patented invention. The justice believed that this failure undermined one of the fundamental principles of patent law - that patents should only be granted for new and useful inventions. He also criticized the majority for their interpretation of prior art references, arguing they had been too narrow in their analysis and had ignored relevant evidence which suggested lack of novelty in Transparent-Wrap’s machine design. Furthermore, he disagreed with how quickly and easily validity was presumed without thorough examination into its originality or improvement over existing designs at time when it was patented.