In the case of Union Tool Company v. Wilson (1921), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over patent rights and royalties between Union Tool Company and an inventor, Mr. Wilson. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Wilson, upholding his right to receive royalty payments for his patented invention used by Union Tool Company even after the expiration date of his patent had passed due to a contractual agreement made between both parties prior to its expiration. The decision was significant as it clarified that while patents do expire - thus allowing anyone to use or manufacture the previously protected invention without paying royalties - if there is a contract stipulating continued payment beyond this period, then such agreements are enforceable under law. This ruling established that contracts involving patents can extend beyond their statutory term and set precedent for future cases concerning intellectual property rights and contractual obligations related thereto.

In the dissenting opinion for Union Tool Company v. Wilson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California law and its application to this case. He argued that under California law, a lien could not be created on property without an express agreement between parties involved. In his view, there was no such agreement in this case; therefore, he believed that Union Tool Company should not have been granted a lien against Wilson’s property for unpaid debts related to their business dealings. Furthermore, he contended that even if such an agreement had existed, it would still need to comply with state laws regarding liens' creation and enforcement - which it did not according to him. Thusly disagreeing with the majority's ruling favoring Union Tool Company based on these points of contention.