In the case of United States ex relatione The Baldwin Company v. Robertson, as Commissioner of Patents, and R.S. Howard Company (1923), the Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two piano manufacturers - The Baldwin Company and R.S. Howard Company. The issue at hand was whether or not an invention could be patented if it had been in public use for more than two years prior to its application date for a patent under U.S law. The court ruled that even though there may have been some form of public use before the statutory period began, this did not necessarily prevent obtaining a valid patent on an invention unless such usage was extensive enough to constitute abandonment to the public domain. This ruling clarified that mere knowledge or isolated experimental use by others does not negate novelty required for patents; rather substantial commercial exploitation is needed before barring patents due to 'prior art'. This decision helped shape future interpretations regarding what constitutes "public use" in terms of intellectual property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex relatione The Baldwin Company v. Robertson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a patent application by The Baldwin Company. He argued that the Commissioner of Patents had overstepped his authority in rejecting an application based on what he perceived as its lack of novelty and usefulness. According to Holmes, these were matters for courts to decide rather than administrative officials. Furthermore, he contended that even if there was some doubt about whether or not a patent should be granted, it would be better to grant it and let any disputes be resolved through infringement suits later on rather than denying inventors their rights upfront without due process.