The United States Supreme Court case, United States Repair and Guarantee Company v. Assyrian Asphalt Company in 1901 revolved around a patent dispute. The U.S. Repair and Guarantee Co., the plaintiff, claimed that the Assyrian Asphalt Co., had infringed on their patented process for refining asphalt by using it without permission or license. However, the defendant argued that they were not infringing because they used a different method to refine asphalt than what was specified in the plaintiff's patent claim. In its decision, the court ruled in favor of U.S. Repair and Guarantee Co., stating that even though there might be slight differences between both methods of refining asphalt, these variations did not change the fundamental principle behind them which was covered under plaintiff’s patent rights; thus constituting an infringement. This ruling reinforced two key principles: firstly, patents protect more than just specific processes but also cover underlying concepts or principles if they are novel; secondly, minor alterations to a patented process do not necessarily exempt one from charges of infringement if those changes still utilize core ideas protected by said patent.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States Repair and Guarantee Company v. Assyrian Asphalt Company argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the contract between both parties. The dissenting justices believed that there was no ambiguity in the contract, as claimed by the majority, but rather it clearly stated that any disputes would be settled through arbitration. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to oral testimony over written evidence during trial proceedings. Furthermore, they contended that even if an error had been made by one party when entering into this agreement, it should not have led to its complete nullification as decided by the court's majority ruling.