In the United States Ex Rel. Brensilber v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 1943, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent for an optical measuring device had been infringed upon by Bausch & Lomb Optical Company. The plaintiff, Brensilber, alleged that his patented invention of a certain type of micrometer was being used unlawfully by the defendant company in their production process without any compensation or permission from him. However, after careful examination and comparison between Brensilber's patented design and Bausch & Lomb's product, it was found that there were significant differences in both designs' functional aspects which made them distinct from each other despite some superficial similarities. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Bausch & Lomb stating that they did not infringe on Brensilber’s patent as their device functioned differently than what was described in his patent claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Brensilber v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case was incorrect, as it failed to consider whether or not there were genuine issues of material fact that should be decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment. The dissent believed that there was enough evidence presented by Brensilber for his claim under the False Claims Act against Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., and thus, he should have been allowed to proceed with his lawsuit. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted certain provisions of this act, arguing they had set an unfairly high bar for whistleblowers like Brensilber who seek to expose fraud against government contractors.